The United States military establishment: from Train Wreck and the RMA to the Bush Doctrine - Essay Example

The United s Military Establishment: from "Train Wreck" and the RMA to the Bush Doctrine The United s military establishment has grown into one of the most powerful forces within several American spheres: political, economic and cultural. The growth in importance of the military is closely linked to developments in US foreign policy that have occurred since the end of WWII. The bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 led to a realization that the two oceans that apparently isolate and protect America from the rest of the world are in fact no protection. The subsequent victory in WWII, the Cold War and policies such as the Truman Doctrine1 led to the development of the military that is seen today. This paper will argue that the massive annual investment in the military that currently occurs stems not only from the perceived need for geographical control over other nations, but also for control over their resources. Ultimately, the US military is being used to maintain what is in fact (but is never named as such by its instigators) an American Empire. The United States military was born during what essentially a 'revolution': the American War of Independence. This was a limited war of the old school variety in which there was a declaration of war at the beginning and a surrender/peace treaty at the end. The victory in the War of Independence led to the creation of the independent nation of America. The 1812 War was another example of this kind of 'limited war', but the American Civil War introduced, arguably for the first time in history, the concept of "total war" to the world.2 Total wars, involving whole populations and in which, eventually, civilians became not only accidental casualties, but deliberate targets, would characterize Twentieth Century conflict. The concept of total war is important for the rise in importance of the American military: in order to fight a total war a military needs to be much larger than in previous conflicts, and must also have a visible presence within a society that must largely support the effort. The ultimate example of total war was WWII, and it is no accident that most of the "military-industrial complex" that we presently have in place originates in that time-period. While often now used as a pejorative phrase, military-industrial complex" was in fact used by President Dwight D Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address to the nation. It is useful to study the whole section of the speech in which it occurs: A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. 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.3 It is fascinating to note that Eisenhower, while arguing for the necessity of a military-industrial complex, also warned of the "potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power" that goes along with it. This paper explore the issues raised by a military man, the architect of America's victory in the European theatre of WWII, and will conclude that the complex has indeed strayed into the area of dangerously misplaced and abused power. Part of this power if found within a paradoxically invisible part of the military's power. The existence of such shadowy agencies as the CIA, the NSC, the MSA and now the supposedly more open conglomeration of power that is the Department of Homeland Security illustrates that the military, while openly much larger than at any time in history, also has a root structure beneath the level of public consciousness that is equally important. Transparency of what power is doing has always been a check upon its abuse, but most people at most times have concurred with the idea that some government activities need to be hidden for the common good. It is where the line is drawn between oversight and security that is important. What is the exact structure of the military in the United States The military is divided into four basic branches: the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines. The President of the United States, in his constitutionally defined role as Commander-in-Chief, is the supreme leader of the armed forces. While Congress can declare war, only the President can order the armed forces into action. Beneath the President is the Defense Secretary (another civilian) who is the link between the elected, civilian branch (represented by the President) and the professional military - who are represented at the highest level by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Money for the military is budgeted by the President (after input from the Pentagon) and then voted on by Congress. Congress in turn has a close relationship with the "industrial" part of Eisenhower's vision, the defense contractors and arms makers. Thus all elements of the military are represented at the highest levels of American government and its structure produces a self-perpetuating organism that becomes ever more powerful. Since WWII the USA has never formally been at war, but it has fought in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and now Iraq, as well as in numerous smaller conflicts. The fact that was has not been declared is a clever way to avoid the fact that the US Constitution names the US Congress as the only institution that can declare war. Presidents since WWII have felt the need to assert an almost monarchical power (that the framers wanted to avoid), and have thus attacked other countries under the guise of "police actions" or as part of a peace-keeping coalition. The lack of a declaration of war is also linked to the fact that the United States always claims that it is "liberating" a people from a bad government rather than invading a country.4 The popular refrain of US governments is that "the people are our friends, we only have a problem with their government." This has been the language of the conqueror from Imperial Rome onwards. Yet Americans, unlike Romans, do not see themselves as part of an imperial empire. Most citizens of most of the originating countries of empires have been proud to call themselves such, as the Roman, British and French Empires illustrate. America, founded upon supposedly egalitarian and utopian ideas such as "all men are created equal"5 has produced citizens that are uncomfortable with the idea that what they see as their superiority should be thrust upon other countries. Thus the talk of "liberation" rather than "invasion", of "national interest" rather than "imperial power". Liberation and national interest are less easily definable phrases than the other two, and thus lend themselves to governments that seek to use them in a slippery, changeable manner. American "national interest" has been used as a reasoning (or excuse) for many different wars, but no-one seems agreed on what it actually means. National interest may be a code-word for economic/political interest, but it has the resonance of something more high-minded to it. National interest may be based upon ethics rather than economic power. For example, President Bush (42) claimed that he was 'liberating' Kuwait from the Iraqi invaders during the Gulf War because of the right to national sovereignty, rather than the more practical need to stop Iraq taking the Saudi Arabian oil-fields that were the next logical progression of their expansion. For some reason it is seen as better to fight a war for an ambiguous ethical concept such as sovereignty rather than for a solid, practical reason such as the need for a reliable source of oil. This kind of Orwellian6 doublespeak occurs even at the most basic level of semantics: America has a Defense Department rather than an Attack Department, or the more manageable, Department of War that used to exist. The fact is that America has only been attacked once in modern history: and that was by al Qaeda, who are firmly placed in the new era of RMA and asymmetrical warfare that will soon be discussed. The attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was essentially an attack on an American colony. But despite this America has a Defense Department, simply because it sounds better to a populace that is uneasy with imperial displays of power. With this background in mind, the main focus of this paper will be the so-called RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) that is both meant to strengthen America's position in the world, and also to avoid the "train wreck" that has taken on almost mythical proportions within the defense establishment. The phrase "train wreck", in reference to the future of the American military, first appeared in a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) report that had the alarming title, "Avoiding the Defense Train Wreck in the New Millenium"7 The wreck involved the fact that the cost of the ten Clinton Administration's defense plan would be likely to exceed available funding by an average of $220 billion per year over the next two decades. Whether the arguments presented by the CSIS were based upon accurate calculations or not, it did introduce an alarmist note into the defense industry:- and here the widest definition of that 'industry' industry is used:- from professional military to politicians to pundits to Fox News - these dire predictions were used to focus attention on what was seen as the downplaying of military importance by a Democratic President and what was wide assumed to be his heir-apparent, Al Gore. The train wreck was based upon the presumption that the train would need to be even larger and more valuable than it had been during the Cold War: spending along the lines suggested by the CSIS would have meant that that the USA would outspend the next six largest armed forces in the world combined. So the question must be asked whether the whole train-wreck theory was merely a clever piece of alarmist propaganda to enable the military to obtain even more money and superiority over potential enemies. Was the train-wreck scenario a clever ploy to strengthen the military for the coming pre-emptive wars First, the idea that sheer spending on the American military produces an invincible force is false on two fronts. One, present events in Iraq shows that if America really does have a solely military empire, (as opposed to the military-economic-political-social-cultural one being argued for here) it is not a particularly competent one. Had this been Imperial Rome, Donald Rumsfeld et al. would have long ago been summoned for a one-way trip to the Emperor to explain his failures. Second, any amount of military investment cannot turn back the fact that several countries in the world could stop any American military action with a single sentence. If Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel (and now perhaps India/Pakistan) stated that "any attack on country x will be regarded as an attack on us", such an attack would not occur. This is because all those named countries have nuclear weapons. It is of course rather unlikely that any of those countries would say such a thing, but then it was not only unlikely, but supposedly unthinkable that nineteen middle-class 'Islamic'8 fanatics could inflict perhaps the greatest military defeat on America other than the Vietnam War. Calling 9/11 a "military defeat" might not be popular, but it is a reflection of reality if that reality is looked at coldly. In the age of Total War civilians are just as legitimate targets as armed forces. America cannot credibly maintain that 9/11 was somehow an evil attack on innocents unless it admits that the firebombing of Germany and Japan, culminating in the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was evil. So sheer investment of money cannot bring about military invincibility, because eventually you have to put "boots on mud", as Napoleon famously stated, and once men are involved then victory is never assured. So the concept of the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) was established. Basically put, the RMA "sparked by rapid advances in information technologies and information processing capabilities, has the potential to transform the essential elements of the armed forces, favoring them with a decisive advantage in future warfare . . . to ensure that the United States secures the benefits for its military and denies them to potential adversaries."9 The RMA is based upon the idea that the exploitation of information technology to achieve superiority both on and off the battlefield will be much cheaper, and more effective, than constant updating of weapons systems that America already has a massive advantage in over any potential enemy. Of course the "potential enemy" now includes an enemy of a very different sort from any faced before. Any discussion of the modern American military must take into account the "War on Terror" and its ramifications. First, the very name "War on Terror" introduces some of the problems that America faces in the ongoing fight. 'Terror' is a tactic, not a physical enemy. How can a country have a war on a tactic One group may stop using it, but another will surely spring up that will employ the same methods. The fact that a war on "terror" can never be won raises the specter of an Orwellian permanent state of warfare, in which governments take increasingly large inroads into personal liberties in the name of protecting those liberties. Here the ideas of Noam Chomsky can inform the argument. Chomsky, a massively prolific scholar, has influenced thinking in areas as disparate as linguistics and psychology, but his political arguments are most important here. Fist, Chomsky states that the word "terror" is a word that is hypocritically applied to small groups but not to countries. Interestingly, he uses the US Army's own definition of terrorism to support his contentions: "Terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological."10 According to the US Army's own definitions, virtually every war that America has fought has utilized "terror" as both a tactic and overall strategy. He suggests that "terror" is an objective description of an act, not morally based. A government, a group or an individual may use terror, and they do so because "it works. . . violence usually works . . . that's world history . . . it is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn't count as terror."11 Apart from exposing the obvious hypocrisy of governments branding people as terrorists who kill 3,00 civilians, but calling those who kill 100,00 in the name of their country heroes, Chomsky also calls into question the precision-orientated focus of the RMA. Smart bombs, information gathering, total battlefield awareness belong in an world in which violence is as limited as possible. If one takes a purely Machiavellian, amoral view of the world, then the US military should employ the tactics of WWII which, while apparently wantonly brutal by present standards, did at least achieve its ends. The Japanese were terrorized into surrender, as were the Germans to a lesser extent. Precision-guided munitions are designed to maximize damage to the target while minimizing so-called "collateral damage" (i.e. civilians). In theory, this enables a target to be attacked with fewer and/or smaller bombs. The practice is somewhat different however. The army must know where the target is, for a start, and that, as the futile search for Osama bin Laden illustrates, is often harder than it would appear to be. The very high-tech nature of the weaponry may remove the military too far from the actual world they are fighting within. Thus, while the Bush Doctrine may call for pre-emptive wars of self-defense (or, to be more simple, attacking countries you think might attack you), there is still a need to actually occupy those countries once you have beaten their organized military. The collapse of the Iraqi military in 2003 illustrates how effective the US armed forces have become in fighting a conventional war, but the resulting chaos shows how little smart weapons etc. can actually finish the more difficult task of a war: controlling conquered territory. Soldiers with notebook computers that keep them in e-mail contact with home, real-time battlefield knowledge, unmanned drones etc. cannot really defeat an enemy that uses the most primitive (but effective) of tactics, such as IEDs made from everyday household materials, and also, and perhaps most importantly, an enemy that does not care whether he lives or dies. Indeed, many of the present enemy are intent upon dying for the cause as a way of receiving eternal rewards. Throughout history soldiers have been prepared to die for their cause (whether it be country, ideology or religion), but few have simply committed suicide in order to kill the enemy, and fewer still have regarded suicide as the greatest victory. The American experience in Iraq is not unique in this matter; a cursory glance at the Israeli experience with Palestinian suicide bombers shows how even a small, controlled society is essentially open to attack from someone who hold his/her own life at little value. The low-tech nature of the opposing forces is seen as somehow an advantage for America within the RMA vision of the world, but the reality of actually fighting such an enemy seems to suggest otherwise. It is easier for the military to defeat an enemy that has more symmetrical power - such as the traditional Iraqi armed forces, much more difficult to defeat an unorganized, but passionate, group of individuals determined to simply outlast you rather than conventionally beat you. Yet the belief still exists that a smaller, more mobile military can somehow defeat an often invisible enemy. Bailey and Webb's recent article is just one example, in which they claim that Al Queda is being beaten, and that "their power to motivate new adherents is limited."12 It seems remarkable that the American military has not learned from previous conflicts and experiences with insurgent campaigns. The Nazi experience of the French Resistance, the French experience with Algerian protests, the English problems with the IRA in Ireland, the Israeli experience of the PLO. . . all of these suggest that any amount of technical superiority cannot replace the power of occupying a country when the people want you to be there. But human nature does not tend to support the invader, however well-intentioned, and history shows that a population will accept a great deal of hardship at the hands of their own, and much less from a foreign force. The "cake-walk" visions of VP Cheney et al. perhaps reflect their own lack of personal military experience than any understanding of reality. However there are those, who possess less formal power than the likes of Cheney, but who have realized that simplistic definitions of the present war, and how to successfully fight it in the future, are not adequate. An example is the article by Michael Mazarr that suggests that one element of warfare that is not being fully explored (because of understandable sensitivities) is what Eisenhower might have termed the "spiritual"13 nature of the conflict. Mazarr argues that the Bush administration's move away from speaking solely of a "War on Terror" to referring to the clumsier "global struggle against violent extremism" hints at "a radical shift in the nature of conflict . . . from traditional notions of armies fighting armies in vast confrontations to . . . twilight struggles against non-state networks of evil-doers."14 The simplistic notion of "evil-doers" apart, Mazarr raises an important point. The current enemy is not fighting for economic power or political influence: he is fighting for the most esoteric religious principles. More to the point, he openly celebrates the fact that he is fighting a religious war. The rapid retraction of President Bush's talk of a "crusade" against terrorists in the Middle East just before the invasion of Afghanistan showed how unwilling America was, at least straight after 9/11/2001, to take on the spiritual nature of the conflict. Had America really been seeking to get to the heart of the terrorist ideas that caused 9/11 it would have had to look no further than Saudi Arabia - where 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from - but because of the realpolitic that dominates modern, 'sane' countries, the much easier target of Afghanistan was chosen. But the true nature of the war facing America is finally being studied. As Michael Morris suggests, the ideological nature of Al Qaeda mandates "a counter-revolutionary response at the strategic level that aims not only to destroy the organization but also to discredit its ideological underpinnings."15 The spiritual nature of the current war, the fact that it is a war between different definitions of the word 'God' is diametrically opposed to the manner in which the American military has been used over the last five decades. Here a return to Noam Chomsky will inform the argument. Chomsky has forcefully argued for decades that America claims to have ethical considerations at heart when it becomes involved in foreign conflicts, or when it out and out invades a country, but that it really has an underlying policy of economic expansion and dominance. All Empires are won by armies, but they are maintained (and solidified) by economic systems that hold them together. Rome did not survive for a millennium just because of its army, it did so because it had an effective economic machine that made the Empire a unified whole. In one of his most famous works, Chomsky argued that most American wars fought post-WWII have been fought for the principle of a steadily, inexorably increasing economic power.16 In this view the army is merely a tool of a powerful group of American companies (now multinationals) who seek domination through having captive and malleable markets within friendly countries. According to Chomsky, if a country threatens to fall out of the American sphere of influence, then it is made an example of through invasion. Other countries with similar ideas should take the hint from these actions. Chomsky's ideas are somewhat belied by the realities of some of the wars he is talking about: the Vietnam Peninsular had no particular economic importance to the USA, but a war was fought there with high costs in terms of men and money. Chomsky may be correct in stating that most of America's successful wars have been fought for economic reasons (see Panama, the Gulf War etc.), but that larger wars against more powerful enemies such as Vietnam, Korea and Iraq have been essentially fallen into for a muddy mixture of ideological motivations and ill-defined economic concerns. Chomsky is exactly correct in stating that Americans would be uncomfortable in stating the real reasons for wars. If the War on Terror were posed in terms of a fight between a secular Judeo-Christian philosophy of tolerance and an medieval Islamic totalitarian view it would smack of the "crusade" that Bush, in a perhaps Freudian slip, spoke of. His words were nearer to the truth than he would have the American population, and the international community, believe. Along with redefining warfare, the current military is spending mind-boggling amounts of money on "defense", or attack. Whether it is successful or not remains to be seen, but it does seem probable that the "military-industrial-political-cultural-economic" complex (to coin a phrase) is indeed, with at least partial intent, creating what will become an American Empire. Money is the driving force behind this intent. For the fiscal year of 2006 the total military budget was $441.6 billion, with Bush proposing a $21 billion increase for fiscal 2007.17 These figures do not include special spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. These have added at least $100 billion to total military spending since 9/11/2001. In comparison with the rest of the world, this budget is 40% of the total world spending on arms, and is seven times larger than the second-largest spender, China. Current defense spending is now greater than it was during the Cold War, and the armed forces are 30% smaller. Such massive spending essentially produces an unstoppable inertia for more spending, whether the military actually needs it or not. The only way of excusing such massive spending is to have convenient enemies that may attack the country, or better yet, a state of continual warfare. It is this state that is perhaps most troubling, as James Madison observed more than two hundred years ago: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes . . . known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few . . . no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."18 The "War on Terror" can be conveniently extended permanently if the American government so wants. The "twilight struggles" that Mazarr contemplates are perhaps the ideal vehicle for keeping the population in a permanent state of panic, in a low level of terror. How can this situation be compared to that in neutral and/or unarmed countries The most famous neutral country is Switzerland, which has no fought in a war for more than 150 years. It became the richest country in Europe during two world wars through being the only European country not directly involved in them. It has a nominal armed force that defends its borders, but these essentially consist of border guards. Other neutral countries that have few if any armed forces, include Lichenstein, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Austria, Costa Rica and Laos. The European members of this small group enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world, and they are also able to invest in massive social programs for the underprivileged so that poverty has almost been eliminated for these countries. It must be remembered that several of these countries were invaded by Nazi Germany during WWII and that it is doubtful whether Switzerland could have kept its neutrality if it seemed clear that Germany was going to win the war. Switzerland, then as now, was a convenient place for the powerful to deposit their money in case of defeat for their country. Neutrality and/or no armed forces for the USA belongs in the realm of a pleasant, but impossible, fantasy. However, the fact that a disappearance of the Defense Department does not seem likely does not imply that the public should not openly question such proposals as the RMA and the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive attack. While pre-emptive attack has been supported by concepts such as Unilateralism and the rejection of what neo-conservatives call "Legalisms" that stop unprovoked war through international law, it is clear that the United States ignores common laws and standards at its peril. Recently North Korea stated that it has the right to pre-emptively attack the West Coast of the United States, simply saying that the United States is not the only one who can attack before the other side can. Setting up a precedent for unprovoked war may in fact lead to a less stable rather than a more secure world. The Bush Doctrine, one that conceives the world in a remarkably simplistic way: that it is divided into "them" and "us", and that you are either with us or against us, has had profound effects around the world. The invasion of Afghanistan was supported by the international community as a sensible and just policy in reaction to the attacks of 9/11. The Taliban were protecting al Qaeda. But the invasion of Iraq, and the apparent threat both to Iran and North Korea, shows that Bush has embarked upon a radically new policy of dominating even potential threats with an iron hand. But such a policy may be counter-productive, as North Korea's worrying threat graphically illustrates. With the seemingly inevitable gaining of nuclear weapons by increasing numbers of countries, international law, and a strict adherence to it, even by the most powerful, may be the only route to avoiding unimaginable destruction. The Bush Doctrine would seem to despise such a point of view, preferring to rely upon the law of "might is right" rather than the principle of adhering to international agreements. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Works Cited Bailey, Dell. Webb, Jeffrey. "US Special Operations Command and the War on Terror", Joint Force Quarterly, Issue 40. Chomsky, Noam. Pirates and Emperors, Old and New Terrorism in the Real World. Pluto Press, New York: 2002. Chomsky, Noam. What Uncle Sam Really Wants. Pluto Press, New York: 2003 Congressional Budget Office, Federal Budget Figures. Eisenhower, Dwight D. "Farewell Address to the Nation", January 17, 1961. Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 29, 1991 Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence, 1776. Goure, Daniel and Ranney, Jeffrey. Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the New Millennium, CSIS, 1999. Madison, James. Political Observations. 1795. Orwell, George. 1984. Faber, London: 1949 Mazarr, Michael. "Extremism, Terror and the Future of Conflict". Policy Review, March 2006. Morris, Michael. "Al Qaeda as Insurgency". Joint Forcer Quarterly. Issue 39. Williams, Cindy. "Can We Afford a Revolution in Military Affairs". Breakthroughs , Spring 1999 Read More