In late May, Vice
President Mike Pence was the commencement speaker at West Point. In part, he
told the graduating cadets this: “It is a virtual certainty that you will
fight on a battlefield for America at some point in your life. You will
lead soldiers in combat. It will happen…And when that day comes, I know
you will move to the sound of the guns and do your duty, and you will fight,
and you will win. The American people expect nothing less.”
What
Pence didn’t mention
that day is why he
could be so sure that this will come to pass. Or who the primary beneficiaries will be, if or when it does.
Because the winners won’t be the American people, who see their taxes go to
missiles instead of healthcare and education. Nor will they be the soldiers
themselves—some of whom will return in flag-draped caskets while many more
sustain life-altering physical and psychological injuries. The winners also
won’t be the citizens of other countries who experience death and displacement
on a horrific scale from our awesome military might. And our planet’s
now-fragile climate won’t come out on top either, since the Pentagon is the
single largest oil consumer in the world.
No, the
spoils will go to our massive and multifaceted war machine. The war machine is
comprised of companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and
Raytheon, among others, that make billions of
dollars each year from war, war preparations, and arms sales. In fact, the U.S.
government pays Lockheed alone more
each year than it provides in funding to the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Labor Department, and the Interior Department combined. The war machine also includes the CEOs of these defense
contractors, who personally take in tens of millions of dollars annually, and
the many politicians in Washington who help secure their jobs by collectively
accepting millions of dollars in contributions from the defense industry—roughly
evenly split between both major
parties. And let’s not forget the retired politicians and retired military
officers, who travel the pot-of-gold pipeline to become highly paid board
members and spokespersons for these same companies.
Vice-President Pence also
didn’t mention to the cadets that the U.S. military budget today exceeds that
of the next seven largest countries combined—an enthusiastic display of
Congressional bipartisanship at its very worst. Nor did he note that we’re the
largest international seller of major weapons in the world, with ongoing
efforts to promote even bigger markets for U.S. arms companies in countries run
by ruthless, repressive autocrats. That’s how it came to pass last August, for
example, that Saudi Arabia used an expensive Lockheed laser-guided bomb to blow
up a bus in Yemen, killing 40 young boys who were on a school trip.
Given these realities, I’d like to offer my perspective—as a psychologist—on a question that has never really been more timely: How is it that the war profiteers, card-carrying members of the so-called 1%, continue to thrive despite all the harm and misery they cause for so many? We know that the 1%—the self-interested very rich and powerful—set the priorities of many of our elected officials. We also know that they exert considerable influence over the mainstream media regarding which narratives are promoted and which are obscured. But in my own work, what’s most important—and what too often goes unrecognized—are the propaganda strategies they use to prevent us from realizing what’s gone wrong, who’s to blame, and how we can make things better. And nowhere is this more apparent or more consequential than when it comes to the one-percenters who run our war machine. In my next three posts, I describe these strategies.
Feed the people, not the Pentagon. Artist Roger Roth. Published courtesy of Larry Bassett.
Note from Kathie MM: It’s that time of year again. Just 12 months ago, I published a post by Larry Bassett entitled Ain’t gonna finance war no more— another effort in a long line of efforts to pursue peace and social justice rather than war and destruction.
April is upon us and most people, excluding the obscenely greedy at the top of the military industrial complex, are trying to be “good citizens” and pay their “obligations,” although the vast majority probably have doubts about the fairness and integrity of the system.
So Larry is back, promoting reflection about what it all means, and sharing his tax return.
By Larry Bassett
Here is what I am sending them this year, a greeting card! No gift enclosed!
Here is the front of the card:
My tax return. April 17, 2018. By Larry Bassett.
And here is the back of the card:
Dedication to my parents.
I had substantial federal taxes in 2016 and 2017 because of taxable income that I inherited from my father. In the past my resistance had been for much smaller amounts, and since I am retired with relatively low income I would usually owe no federal taxes. But I have seized this opportunity to redirect almost a quarter of a million dollars to good causes in several years. I believe the IRS will have a hard time collecting from me, but whatever they do they will not be able to undo the many people and organizations that I have helped. I am still trying to poke the bear since if the government ignores me my resistance has had limited impact. I resisted $130,000 last year and so far the IRS has sent me five letters and filed the usual tax lien. Maybe I will get their attention when the documentary about my WTR action is released. For more about that, go to The Pacifist Facebook page.
That’s not enough! Artist: Roger Roth. Published courtesy of Larry Bassett.
Note from Kathie MM: It takes courage in today’s world to believe in and work for democracy, for human rights, for social justice, for ways to be ethical when constantly confronted by corruption. What are your views on the ways in which Larry Bassett faces these challenges? I am sure all of Engaging Peace’s readers look for ways to make the world a better place. Please share your stories with us.
They shall beat their swords into plowshares, a monument at the Menachem Begin Heritage Foundation, Jerusalem. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: דוד שי.
Invoking the moral authority of “God, god, gods, g _ d” is a timeless ploy used to assure military invincibility, enlist public support, and comfort public doubts about consequences of violence, destruction, and war. The 2013 paper focused on the debate between two competing British prime minister election candidates in 1878: Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone. Gladstone raised the question of whether “God” favored Britain or Afghanistan following British invasion and occupation. Gladstone argued eloquently, God would have no preferences because God valued all lives.
Of special interest in those times was the controversial decision to divide Afghanistan between Britain and Russia according to the 1893 Durand Line; this line established specific spheres of influence and control between the two nations, ignoring any Afghanistan concerns. (see: Durand Line, en.m.Wikipedia.org. October 14, 2016, 11:47).
Fifteen Anniversary Day of Invasion: October 7, 2016
USA Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)
October 7, 2016 is the Fifteenth Anniversary day of the NATO (USA) invasion, occupation, and on-going destruction of Afghanistan. In some quarters, the Anniversary will be celebrated as an example of Western (USA) determination to avenge the 9/11 attacks with military, economic, and political responses, and to assert USA military power and global domination. The Afghanistan invasion was adroitly sanctioned by the G.W. Bush infamous Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), with its ridiculous “Manichaean” duality: “You are either with us, or against us!”
While the USA and Europe recall, relive, and celebrate June 6th as the D-Day WWII landing in Europe, it is unlikely similar status will be assigned to the Afghan invasion date. Perhaps this reflects the growing shame and guilt associated with the blood stained decision (“Out, Out Damn Spot!” Thank you, Lady Macbeth, for reminding us guilt is difficult to erase).
The GWOT is now acknowledged to be a surreptitious-failed policy, contrived in Pentagon rooms by neo-cons, militarists, and right-wing zealots; it was presented as a triumphal stance asserting Bush’s legacy of leadership. The GWOT continues to be used by President Barack Obama’s Administration whenever needed. It is essentially “carte blanche” to invade at will, without remorse, regret, accountability, or risk of criminal prosecution.
There are now informed views proposing the 9/11 attack was itself part of a false-flag conspiracy; these views acknowledge (1) the architectural impossibilities of the towers’ orchestrated collapse; (2) the targeted location destruction of the Pentagon budget office and personnel office. This office location was investigating billions of dollars in military fraud; (3) obvious failures to prevent the 9/11 tragedy when information was available weeks prior to the actual attack.
Was the 9/11 tragedy a radical Islamic terrorist attack, a state-sponsored terrorist attack, or a carefully contrived plan to justify the destruction and decimation of Middle East invasions and regime changes (e.g., Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Turkey). The destructive role of the infamous 1996-1997 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) remains to be explored (Wikipedia reference).
9/11: False Flag?
Although celebrated in some quarters, in other quarters, the Anniversary of the Afghanistan invasion will be recognized as yet another example of the continual efforts by Western international military-industrial cabals to provide causes and/or reasons to invade, occupy, and exploit non-Western nations. Although noble cries of liberty, democracy, and freedom are voiced by the USA and its NATO allies, more sinister reasons are always denied, including concerns for access to implement and exploit natural resources (e.g., oil, rare metals), strategic military positions (Silk Road gateway, military missile defense locations), and chess-board game dominance tactics enjoyed by foreign affairs experts (e.g., Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski).
In the non-existent world of principled media and journalism, the October 7, 2016 Fifteenth Anniversary would elicit challenging headlines of remorse, using forceful words and analyses condemning USA’s “lust” for war using the aegis of lies, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentations, celebrity endorsements, movies, games, medals, and, bombs and bullets.
Total War: Learn from Nazi Leaders
Unfortunately, headlines of this nature are unlikely to occur. Unlikely, also to appear in headlines, will be accusations of the slaughter of soldiers, enemy fighters, and innocents. The sterile term for innocent-citizen deaths is “collateral damage.” How quaint! Deaths of soldiers and enemy fighters, however, are considered acceptable legal and legitimate actions! A death is a death! Enemy fighter deaths are inscribed in impersonal accounting-ledgers as numbers’ soldier deaths on tombstones.
The “Total War,” military strategy policy was advocated by Nazi Minister Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Josef Goebbels (1897 – 1946). “Total War” is now accepted logical military strategy. When you make war, use every tactic you can to win. Among militarists, war brings a calculated indifference to human suffering, destruction, and death. Reflexive reliance upon limited military solutions raises questions about the consequences for both targets and the perpetrators. “Total War” offers flexibility to destroy.
Interestingly, an article on a recent Government Accounting Office (GAO) report (see Claire Bernish, October 14, 2016, Activist Post), alleges the Pentagon uses more than five hundred million dollars annually to “galvanize public support for its wars.” At some point, invoking “God, god, g _ d” would by an excellent PR tactic. Can’t lose if “God” is on your side, even if it is a lie!
I wonder? Is there some functional value considering war-making a psychological, behavioral, and moral disorder? While it is notably absent as a category in the two arbiters of insanity, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and ICD 10, it could be argued chronic pursuit of war warrants a disorder, disease, and/or deviancy status for either a nation, society, and or culture. Perhaps it could be called the “The Pentagon Syndrome.”
Lessons from 19th Century “Imperialism”
In 1877-1878, as Great Britain struggled to expand its imperialistic global empire spanning six continents, two men, dramatically different from one another in political ambitions and moral values, were pitted against each other in a fierce election struggle to become prime minister: Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone.
At this time, Britain and Russia were at war against each other in Afghanistan, in what was euphemistically called the “Great Game,” romanticized in the novel, Kim, by Rudyard Kipling (1865 – 1936). The two nations were fighting over the division of Afghanistan. Little concern was given to the wishes of the Afghan peoples, who were considered by both sides to be war-like uncivilized hill tribes, deserving Western civilization’s fateful invasions.
Disraeli and Gladstone
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), believed Britain should continue to expand its colonial wars and occupations. He argued the pursuit of “Empire” reflected Britain’s destiny to lead the world; Britain’s moral responsibilities to “civilize” the world. Disraeli pointed out the extensive economic wealth brought by Empire, as evidenced by the financial profits of generated from the Industrial Age (Edwardian – Victorian periods). Can you hear English composer Edgar Elgar’s (1857–1934) rousing Pomp and Circumstance Marches?
William Gladstone (1809-1898), leader of the opposition Liberal Party, argued in favor of re-considering Britain’s imperialistic expansion because of its social and moral consequences for both the people colonized, and for the moral standing of Britain’s citizens. Gladstone saw colonial wars as a “criminal assaults on innocent people” (Porch, 2001, p 42).
Gladstone appealed to conscience at a time when Western imperialism was colonizing Africa, Asia, and South America, exploiting natural and human resources, killing conquered people with impunity, and celebrating (Joseph Conrad’s gripping novel, The Heart of Darkness, 1899 & 1902, captures the sheer madness and horror of imperialism).
Results of the 1878 British election would have profound implications for the entire world. Amid the accusations, character insults, and personal attacks, fundamental questions emerged regarding (1) the morality of wars, invasion and occupation, (2) colonial domination and exploitation, and (3) national economic growth and development. Issue: “Invoking God as a moral justification for ending imperialistic invasions and wars.
Disraeli and disliked each other intensely; their quick wit made for memorable political insults. At one social gathering,” Gladstone said to Disraeli, “I predict, Sir, you will die either by hanging, or of some vile disease.” To which, Disraeli replied, “That all depends, Sir, upon whether I embrace your principles, or your mistress.”
Although quick-witted character insults brought laughter, applause, and well-known British triumphal affirmations of shared opinion: “Hear! Hear!,” but a pivotal moral moment was at hand. The election came down to Gladstone’s views the Zulu War and Afghan War (“The Great Game”) were essentially “slaughters of innocents” by British Redcoats;” an indelible stain on British identity and civility. It was a time of choice! At the height of the debate, Gladstone appealed to the British public’s sense of conscience:
“Remember the rights of the savage. . . . Remember the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eyes of Almighty God as can be your own.”
Timeless words and wisdom! Anyway you spell it, Gladstone asserts God does not play favorites. Disraeli lost the election. Britain’s pursuit of empire continued, but lacked the prior resolve and support of its citizens. A nation’s conscience was laid bare. Some claim Gladstone’s words signaled the beginning of the end of the British Empire! Imperialism, of course, continues today via violent wars and invasions and associated immoral political and economic exploitation and abuse.
Question: Can awareness of the Afghanistan invasion Anniversary date lift American “public conscience” to rises in protest: Whose side is God, god, gods, g _ d, on? Gladstone’s words remain one of the most powerful arguments against the “exceptionalism” used by the USA, Great Britain, and allies (e.g., NATO) to justify invasions, occupations, and domination. No nation can claim moral superiority as a sanction from “god” or any other force or history, to justify its violent actions.
Enduring Lessons
Are there any enduring lessons to be learned from the fateful words of this 19th Century election in Britain? I believe so. Some lessons come from sacred religious texts, too often forgotten amidst carefully selective proclamations from Monotheistic religion pulpits and lecterns. Some come from secular texts (e.g., Magna Carta, UDHR, and USA’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution), which speak of the enduring human values of peace, liberty, freedom, beauty, and god-given rights. Some lessons are in the daily utterances of people who see the tragic consequences of militarism and violence.
The following is a list of enduring lessons coming to mind as I reflect on the endless wars of our times. With Gladstone’s words ringing in my ears, I offer them to you:
You reap what you sow!
Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed”
“Thou shalt not kill!”
“What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not s that your passions are at war within you?”
“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.”
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you (Golden Rule in every major religion)
Violence begets violence; violence begets hate; hate begets hate; hate begets violence.
Every empire in human history has collapsed.
Empires collapse from within.
As empires collapse, leaders impose domestic controls, and assert their dominance.
It is easier to conquer a people and their land, than it is to leave depart in peace.
Wars are easy to start, difficult to end.
The legacy of Imperialism is enduring resentment.
Wars require money; public services are denied.
Major beneficiaries of war, are war industries, arms dealers, and generals.
Exceptionalism is always self-deceit!
There are no winners in wars.
Wars scars are permanent.
When you go forward for revenge, dig two graves.
Oaths of office cannot be used as excuses for war. The best defense for a nation is peace and justice.
War socializes a “culture of war; a “culture of war” socializes citizens.
“Nation shall not lift up sword against nation.”
“God, god, g _ d,” does not have favorites!
And So . . .
Today the national dish of Britain is “Curry.” Britain and Russia remain rivals. The United States of America is involved in hot-wars and cold-wars around the globe; USA sullied and flawed invasions and regime-change strategies and tactics have resulted in millions of deaths, displaced people, floods of refugees, and mass migrations redefining nation identities and boundaries.
The United States of America has been at war in Afghanistan for 15 years. Estimations of human, environmental, economic and moral costs are staggering; yet even so, they do not capture the full consequences of our tragic invasion for Afghanistan, for Afghani people, and for our conscience. Numbers are tossed before us as a balance sheet of assets and liabilities. My “God, god, gods, g _ d,” or whatever force may be! The horror is apocalyptic!
This is genocide and ethnic cleansing by any name, term, or definition! It is endless war; destruction of a nation, people, culture, and history. This is savagery at the hands of the USA’s paradoxical self-defeating counter-terrorism war. This war fills immoral military-industrial complex coffers, and a suffering people’s coffins. Gladstone’s words echo today if we choose to hear them: “Remember the sanctity of life . . . “
And Now Africa . . .
And as if to dismiss any semblance of moral authority, the USA has announced it will send USA troops to 35 African nations. The strategy is the same: advisers, troops, occupation, regime change, exploitation. Stop it! We are not the Empire of “God, god, gods, g _ d!” We are a cruel, brutal, merciless, vicious nation. No amount of PR can disguise this fact! Have we no shame?
We punish and abuse our own citizens! Stop this delusional portrayal of our nation as sanctioned by “God, god, gods, g _ d.” We are not! We are a corrupt and bought nation, sold like a slave to the highest financial bidders! What happened to us? Are the roots of our actions traceable to our own savage history? Are we now? Have we always been a “Culture of War?”
References:
Corbett, J. (2016, October 12). Afghanistan War: What you are not being told? Corbett Report: 10:16 PM.
Khouri, R. (October 12, 2016). The frighteningly high human and financial costs of war. Al-Jazeera.
Marsella, A.J. (2014). War, peace, and justice. Alpharetta, GA: Mountain Arbor Press.
Marsella, A.J. (2011). The United States of America: A “culture of war.” International Journal of Intercultural Research, 35, 714-728.
Porch, D. (2001). Wars of empire. London, UK: Wellington House.
Wikipedia: Durand Line, October 14, 2016, 11:47 AM.
Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., a member of the TRANSCEND Network, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Emeritus Professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii’s Manoa Campus in Honolulu, Hawaii, and past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center in Honolulu. He is known nationally and internationally as a pioneer figure in the study of culture and psychopathology who challenged the ethnocentrism and racial biases of many assumptions, theories, and practices in psychology and psychiatry. In more recent years, he has been writing and lecturing on peace and social justice. He has published 21 books and more than 300 publications noted for challenging the ethnocentricity and biases of Western psychology and psychiatry, and for advocating peace and social justice. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 17 October 2016.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Whose Side is “God, god, gods, g _ d,” _ _ _ on? A Reprise and More, is included. Thank you.
This image is a mash-up of various photographs of Ana Belen Montes compiled into one full High Res version. Image by Marcus.rosentrater and is in the public domain.
If you want to believe the Washington Post, with its increasingly neocon voice, Ana Belen Montes, currently locked up at the U.S. Marines Air Station at Fort Worth, is a dangerous spy, guilty of “brazen acts of treason.”
On the other hand, maybe she is a whistle-blower, someone “whorevealswrongdoingwithin an organization to thepublic or to those in positions of authority.”Maybe she should be grouped with other better known whistle blowers vilified in the corporate media—e.g., Daniel Ellsberg, Joe Darby, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden, all of whom exposed various forms of illegal state violence.
Ana Belen Montes, a Puerto Rican U.S citizen, with degrees in international relations, was recruited by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 1985 and posted to the Bolling Air Base in Washington, where she worked as an intelligence investigation specialist. In 1992, she was transferred to the Pentagon, promoted to the position of Senior Analyst, and had access to almost all data on Cuba collected by the intelligence community. She spent time in a “fake” post with the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana to study the Cuban military and was sent back there in 1998 to “monitor Pope John Paul II’s visit.”
In September 2001, while working in her office in the DIA compound in Washington D.C., Ana was arrested by F.B.I. agents, and charged with espionage on behalf of Cuba. At her trial, she declared, “there is an Italian proverb that perhaps best describes what I believe: ‘The whole world is just one country. In this world country, the principle of loving others as oneself is an essential guide to harmonious relations between neighboring states.’ This principle implies understanding and tolerance of the different ways that others act. It establishes that we treat other nations the way we would like to be treated – with consideration and respect. In my opinion, we have unfortunately never applied this to Cuba.”
Ana went on to say, “In doing what has brought me before the court, I put my conscience above obeying the law. I believe our government’s policy on Cuba to be cruel and unjust and profoundly hostile. I felt morally obliged to help the island defend itself against our efforts to impose upon them our values and our political system….Why do we not let them decide how to manage their internal affairs, just as the U.S. has done for more than 200 years?…. We can see today more than ever that intolerance and hate – be it on the part of individuals or Governments – results only in suffering and grief.”
