The recent condemnation of MoveOn.org by the U.S. Senate may or may not have significant consequences. But more important than that is what it signifies about the tragic militarization of our country.
Actually, it reflects more directly on the militarization of the U.S. Congress than the American people, since today’s U.S. Congress is far more militaristic than are the American people who elected it. However, the two are very much related, as Congress must be at least somewhat concerned about the opinions of the U.S. electorate, and Congress’s actions certainly tend to sway the opinions of their constituents.
Anyhow, the fact that the U.S. Senate would
condemn MoveOn.org for their cogent anti-militaristic opinions while not only failing to condemn but repeatedly complying with the opinions and recommendations of
Progress for a New American Century (PNAC) is a very ominous portent for the future of our country and the world.
Why the U.S. Senate should not have condemned the actions of MoveOn.orgI do not know whether or not the official U.S. Senate condemnation of MoveOn.org’s criticisms of General Betray Us constitutes abridgement of their First Amendment rights.
Some think that it does. Certainly MoveOn or anyone else has every right to criticize our government for anything which it believes deserves criticism. But does condemnation of their criticism constitute abridgement of that right? Condemnation from anyone but our federal government certainly would
not constitute abridgement of that right. But condemnation by Congress, I don’t know. If Congress’s condemnation of MoveOn.org’s criticism has a chilling effect on future criticisms then it almost certainly does constitute an abridgement of our First Amendment rights.
But whether or not Congress violated our First Amendment rights by their condemnation of MoveOn.org, there are plenty of other reasons why they should not have done so. First and foremost is the fact that
MoveOn’s criticisms were right on target. They strongly disagreed with Petraeus’ recent report, they explained why they disagreed with it, and they have produced abundant documentation to back up their opinion on this matter.
Secondly, as Keith Olbermann has
so clearly explained, Petraeus was not speaking for the military per se, but rather as a political appointee of George W. Bush. It is well known that the Bush administration has politicized and thereby corrupted every aspect of the Executive Branch of our government, thereby ensuring that any member of our Executive Branch, which is paid for by our taxes, speaks not as an employee of our government, but rather as an arm of the Republican Party or as George Bush’s personal emissary. Any member of the Executive Branch who fails to do that is summarily fired – or worse. That fact alone vastly increases the justification for any criticism by any person who serves at the pleasure of George W. Bush.
Thirdly, MoveOn’s criticisms of General Betray Us were motivated by a desire to protest a war that has been profoundly destructive of the lives of Iraqi and American citizens and
beneficial mainly only to friends of the Bush administration who profit financially from the war. As such, our continued occupation of Iraq is morally unacceptable and is fueled by a tragic strain of militarism in our country that is
firmly rejected by the majority of the American people. Criticisms of that tragic militarism should be welcomed by Congress, not condemned by it.
A Summary of PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” By contrast, consider PNAC’s premier document, “
Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. Many believe, with very good reason, that this document is a blueprint for the imperialistic ambitions of a small group of men who have dominated the Bush administration, and therefore risks plunging our nation into a catastrophic world wide war that could very well make World War II look tame by comparison. Whereas our Declaration of Independence talks of the unalienable rights of all people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, PNAC talks of the right of the United States to take what it wants from other nations and to shape them to meet our interests. In other words, other peoples have NO rights – only the right to live as long as they do our bidding. Think that’s an exaggeration?
The primary theme of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is that our military must be much stronger than the militaries of any nation or combination of nations that might oppose our ambitions. Why is that so important? Because we need to “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”; we need to “boldly and purposefully promote American principles abroad”; without such a military we might lack the capability to maintain an “order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity”; and more specifically, we now have new “missions” which require “defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East” (This was written before the Bush administration publicly expressed any interest in invading Iraq and even before the 9-11 attacks on our country).
And how are we to protect and defend all those interests? Well, the document notes that “there are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it….” (those ungrateful evil doers!). Therefore, we must “deter the rise of a new great-power competitor”. And we must do this by “deterring or, when needed, by compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests and principles…” Therefore, “The Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect, independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at all times.” And we better make some changes because the current extent of our military bases in the region does not allow for us to do that.
So it’s all about using our vastly superior weapons of mass destruction to protect American interests abroad. Their countries, our interests. They have them, we want them and we must get them. There is not the slightest indication anywhere in the document that suggests that people living in other countries have any rights when it comes to
our interests.
Oh, but the document also speaks of our “principles”. That must add some moral weight to their plans, right? Nope. They say nothing about what those principles are. And since there is no separation anywhere in their document between our principles and our interests, it is obvious that they consider our principles to be the equivalent of taking whatever we want – using our superior military force to do so.
Are the opinions expressed in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” protected by our First Amendment? Though I am a strong believer in the need for our First Amendment rights, and I have even frequently
written about how the Bush administration has been systematically destroying those rights, nevertheless I believe that there is a legitimate question as to whether “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” should be protected by our First Amendment and to whether Congress should condemn that organization. In fact, I strongly believe that it should. The whole document seethes with imperialism and militarism, but the key part I believe is this:
Therefore, we must “deter the rise of a new great-power competitor”. And we must do this by “deterring or, when needed, by compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests and principles…”
What could it mean to “compel” other nations to “act in ways that protect American interests and principles…”? Some might rationalize that that language could be taken to mean compelling other nations to protect American interests through diplomacy or economic measures. But the whole document is about increasing our military might to levels that would make the rest of the world militarily defenseless against us. Taken in the context of the whole document, I don’t think that there is any way to characterize that statement other than as a recommendation for preventive war. Worse yet, it is a recommendation for preventive war based not even on a fear of imminent or even future military attack, but rather based simply on our imperial assessment that another nation refuses to “protect American interests” to the degree that we would like.
War for that purpose is clearly against international law, according to the Geneva Conventions. It is defined as the crime of “
Aggressive War”, and it is the crime for which several Nazi war criminals were sentenced to death by the
Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946. Furthermore, since our country is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, it is against U.S. law. And this is not just any law. It is law that was enacted specifically for the purpose of preserving world peace. It is difficult to think of a law that is more important than that.
Our First Amendment does not protect
all speech – nor should it. Specifically,
it does not protect against speech that advocates the commission of serious crimes. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” advocates the most serious crimes imaginable. Therefore, I think that it is open to question as to whether or not it is legitimately protected by our First Amendment. But whether I am on solid legal ground with that opinion or not, certainly it is in far greater need of condemnation by our Congress than is MoveOn.org’s criticisms of the militaristic speech and actions of the Bush administration.
For those who think that it’s ‘over the top’ to advocate government condemnation of PNACIf a member of the Ku Klux Klan gives a speech recommending the racially motivated murder of specified or unspecified persons, and if a some other person acts upon that recommendation and commits murder, then the person who made the recommendation is clearly subject to criminal prosecution. The First Amendment will not protect him in that case.
So why should it be any different for those who recommend illegal war? I’m not talking about differences of opinion here. For those who in early 2003 were foolish enough to believe that Iraq presented an imminent threat to our country and who therefore recommended preemptive war on that basis, I say that they were entitled to express their opinion on that. But PNAC goes beyond that. They recommend
preventive war, based on nothing more than the belief that another country is acting against what they perceive to by U.S.
interests.
It is difficult to imagine a doctrine that could be more dangerous to the preservation of world peace than that. And I can hardly imagine a doctrine that is more worthy of condemnation than that. If our Congress wasn’t so militaristically oriented I believe that they would (and they should) seriously consider condemning that document and that organization.
On the current sorry state of our nation Militarism and imperialism are not new concepts for our country. There has always been a degree of militarism and
imperialism in our country. But the current degree to which militarism and imperialism are embraced under the George W. Bush administration, and the recklessness with which it is pursued, goes well beyond any militarism/imperialism previously seen in our country. Consequently, we are either on a path towards unhindered worldwide imperialism, or if not “successful” in that, a path towards worldwide catastrophe.
It is tempting to believe that a new Congress and new President in 2009 will reverse that path – if we don’t get sucked into World War III prior to that time. On the other hand, the current degree of militarism of our Congress, as exemplified by its failure to make progress towards ending the Iraq War and by its recent official condemnation of an organization whose primary purpose is to help them end that war, should cause us to wonder whether or not our militaristic path will be reversed any time in the foreseeable future.
Chris Dodd, in his recent book, “
Letters from Nuremberg – My Father’s Narrative of a Quest for Justice”, spoke of our need for the rule of law in international affairs, as personified by the Nuremberg Tribunal and its successor institutions, such as the
International Criminal Court:
People like my father set a clear and binding standard, saying, in effect, that here precisely is what happened as a result of tyranny and that any attempt to repeat such behavior would be seen for what it is. We were naïve, of course, in this view. Since Nuremberg, the world has demonstrated time and again its capacity to stun us with outrage and inhumanity… Yet there is no doubt that Nuremberg remains more than an event of historical significance – it has become a word in the language that reminds us of ultimate collective responsibility for aggression, racism, and crimes against humanity…
They understood that the ability of the United States to help bring about a world of peace and justice was rooted not in our military might alone but our moral authority… Our ability to succeed in spreading values of freedom and democracy and human rights would only be as effective as our own willingness to uphold them…
These are clear statements
against the militaristic and imperialistic paths on which our nation is currently traveling. We need to elect more members of Congress and a U.S. President who think this way and reject the militarism/imperialism that currently characterize our nation, if we are to avoid worldwide catastrophe.