The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew J. Bacevich Archive
Andrew Bacevich: Pentagon, Inc.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

A writer who dares to revisit a snarky article dashed off five-plus years earlier will necessarily approach the task with some trepidation. Pieces such as the one republished below are not drafted with the expectation that they will enjoy a protracted shelf life. Yet in this instance, I’m with Edith Piaf: Non, je ne regrette rien. The original text stands without revision or amendment. Why bother to update, when the core argument remains true (at least in my estimation).

This past weekend, I attended the annual meeting of Veterans for Peace (VFP), held on this occasion in funky, funky Berkeley, California. The experience was both enlightening and humbling. VFP members are exemplars of democratic citizenship: informed, engaged, simultaneously realistic — not expecting peace to bust out anytime soon — and yet utterly determined to carry on with their cause. To revive a phrase from another day, they insist that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

What particularly impressed me was the ability of rank-and-file VFP members to articulate the structural roots of American militarism and imperialism. They understand that the problem isn’t George W. Bush and Barack Obama (and therefore won’t be solved by Hillary or The Donald). It’s not that we have a war party that keeps a peace party under its boot. No, the problem is bigger and deeper: a fraudulent idea of freedom defined in quantitative material terms; a neoliberal political economy that privileges growth over all other values; a political system in which Big Money’s corruption has become pervasive; and, of course, the behemoth of the national security apparatus, its tentacles reaching into the far quarters of American society — even into the funky precincts of the San Francisco Bay Area. There is no peace party in this country, even if a remnant of Americans is still committed to the possibility of peace.

If any of my weekend confreres have occasion to read this piece on the second go-round, I hope that it will pass muster with them. If not, I know they will let me know in no uncertain terms.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. The author complains about the Us not being able to end wars, seemingly unaware of that being deliberate. Consider the 1909 conclusion by research funded by the Carnegie foundation about war being the most advantageous in the interest of the Us.
    As for Britain, he would probably be even more shocked to find that Britain deliberately looses battles. Examples Gallipoli with the purpose of fooling Russia not to make a separate peace on the eastern front. That battle was deliberately setup to fail and resulted in 250 thousand casualties. Another case is when the British obstructed the Nationalists in their fight against the bolsheviks outside st Petersburg in 1919. Both by not wanting to move to the front as well as for sending useless weapons and equipment. The nationalist general complained that it was worse to have them as allies than as foes. And later during WW2 the attack against Dieppe, that time with the purpose of fooling the USSR, depriving them of a second front.
    Britains bungled attempt in Norway also made sense for helping the Nazis in their quest to conquer Russia. In the battle of France the British forces refused to come to their assistance. Clearly Britain didnt want to weaken the Nazis too much in that stage.
    Makes the Us inability to end wars look good…
    The title Perpetual war for perpetual peace by H E Barnes is fitting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    The British did not deliberately lose Gallipoli, the Dieppe Raid or the Norway Campaign. They failed due to errors, mismanagement or superior tactics and strategy of the enemy. No serious Historian would entertain your claims.
    You are a conspiracy nutjob, go back whence you came.
    , @Lost american
    Peter- where did you get the information on Gallipoli and Dieppe? I know that leaders are sleazy and I tend to believe you but I would have to study it and look for sources.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tengelhardt/andrew-bacevich-pentagon-inc/#comment-1536978
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Donald Trump may not solve the problems of American militarism, but he would be a very good start. Cooperation with Russia, getting out of Russia’s face in E Europe, withdrawal of troops from the Middle East, pushing for a more equitable settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. These and more are advocated by Mr Trump.
    Such is your intense personal dislike of Mr Trump, you will never give him credit. I hope you drown in your own bile.

    Read More
  3. @Peter Grafström
    The author complains about the Us not being able to end wars, seemingly unaware of that being deliberate. Consider the 1909 conclusion by research funded by the Carnegie foundation about war being the most advantageous in the interest of the Us.
    As for Britain, he would probably be even more shocked to find that Britain deliberately looses battles. Examples Gallipoli with the purpose of fooling Russia not to make a separate peace on the eastern front. That battle was deliberately setup to fail and resulted in 250 thousand casualties. Another case is when the British obstructed the Nationalists in their fight against the bolsheviks outside st Petersburg in 1919. Both by not wanting to move to the front as well as for sending useless weapons and equipment. The nationalist general complained that it was worse to have them as allies than as foes. And later during WW2 the attack against Dieppe, that time with the purpose of fooling the USSR, depriving them of a second front.
    Britains bungled attempt in Norway also made sense for helping the Nazis in their quest to conquer Russia. In the battle of France the British forces refused to come to their assistance. Clearly Britain didnt want to weaken the Nazis too much in that stage.
    Makes the Us inability to end wars look good...
    The title Perpetual war for perpetual peace by H E Barnes is fitting.

    The British did not deliberately lose Gallipoli, the Dieppe Raid or the Norway Campaign. They failed due to errors, mismanagement or superior tactics and strategy of the enemy. No serious Historian would entertain your claims.
    You are a conspiracy nutjob, go back whence you came.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Grafström
    Serious historians are all marginalized and have a hard time getting their works published. The excellent and indeed serious historians Docherty and MacGregor mentioned in my answer to Lostamerican, are a case in point. Their publisher was bought by Random House, who prevented the publishing of the sequel to their treatise about the years leading to WW1. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307
    That sequel presumably is the content you may find on their website.
    Establishment history is a whorehouse. And they know they are a bunch of liars. It pays much better.
    When you get past your conspiracy-denial phase you will have many more shocks. The world is a theater where puppets of the wealthy are acting out. And they and their military often have opposite aims. Several examples in D & As texts.
    There is more about the Norway campaign than has been declassified by the allied side. Mannerheim of Finland knew but was not allowed to include it in his memoirs. Erkki Hautamäki in 'Finland in the Eye of the Storm'(I dont know if there is any English edition) claims Britain France and the USSR made a secret deal shortly after the Molotov/Ribbentropp pact in which they would occupy Scandinavia and then attack Germany from the north. I am quite sure the British never intended to fulfil their part of the deal. Tell me if you want me to continue.
  4. @Peter Grafström
    The author complains about the Us not being able to end wars, seemingly unaware of that being deliberate. Consider the 1909 conclusion by research funded by the Carnegie foundation about war being the most advantageous in the interest of the Us.
    As for Britain, he would probably be even more shocked to find that Britain deliberately looses battles. Examples Gallipoli with the purpose of fooling Russia not to make a separate peace on the eastern front. That battle was deliberately setup to fail and resulted in 250 thousand casualties. Another case is when the British obstructed the Nationalists in their fight against the bolsheviks outside st Petersburg in 1919. Both by not wanting to move to the front as well as for sending useless weapons and equipment. The nationalist general complained that it was worse to have them as allies than as foes. And later during WW2 the attack against Dieppe, that time with the purpose of fooling the USSR, depriving them of a second front.
    Britains bungled attempt in Norway also made sense for helping the Nazis in their quest to conquer Russia. In the battle of France the British forces refused to come to their assistance. Clearly Britain didnt want to weaken the Nazis too much in that stage.
    Makes the Us inability to end wars look good...
    The title Perpetual war for perpetual peace by H E Barnes is fitting.

    Peter- where did you get the information on Gallipoli and Dieppe? I know that leaders are sleazy and I tend to believe you but I would have to study it and look for sources.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Grafström
    Docherty & MacGregor have written an excellent account about how the Gallipoli campaign, was set up to fail: firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com use their listbox to select the term Gallipoli. Its a dozen short articles.
    Suffices to mention as an appeticer that the British had a superbly wellinformed expert on the Turkish defences but for no reasonable explanation abstained from selecting him for the task. Kitchener and Churchill's own notes confirm that campaign was conciously setup to fail.
    The motive was that they were determined to prevent Russia from taking the straits, something the British had promised them to get them into the war in the first place. So the British pretended they would do it for them, and the great losses convinced the Russians it had been a genuine effort, so they didnt make peace with Germany. As the war went on Germany was worn down needing 3-4 times greater proportion mobilized than Russia. In 1917 Russia was ready to go for the straits themselves. That was why the February revolution took place. Even Lenin admitted in a book that French and British capitalists were sponsoring it although the version for Soviet citizens was censored.
    The British admitted having informed the Germans about Dieppe but pretended they were mistaken about the date. I think 6000 Canadiens were betrayed in this manner.
    http://senseofevents.blogspot.se/2012/08/british-intelligence-told-germans-in.html
    The British had no intention of shortening the war at that stage. Only later when the Soviets were advancing far westwards. You shouldnt be too surprised about Churchill sacrificing them Canadians when having learnt about how he sacrificed many more att Gallipoli.
  5. Peter- I should say that perhaps you are speaking in faith that you put on what you researched but I would have to know where it came from. It seems George Soros and other elites and super rich persuade leaders on what to do , on wars to start.
    I often wonder if those who make the world what it is saw Barack Obama as the perfect flunky to put in office- a man with a history of lying and stepping on people for personal gain no matter what race they are, a man who will do what sociopaths tell him to do.

    Read More
  6. I have read a Cow Most Sacred many times- it is useful today as it was in 2011.
    I interacted with thousands of soldiers since 9/11/2001. I did time in Marines late 60s. This simply gives me an idea of what motivates people to join the military and just what they believe (all from TV and mainstream newspapers and magazines).
    After 9-11 I worked in Reserves and VA until retired for health in 2011. I had a lot of concern for these soldiers and for their parents (please don’t accuse me of being a “Sister Mary”). I hated the idea that men and women were going to war for unconcerned self serving creeps like neocons and Zionists, and for garbage like George Soros who is pulling strings all over the world. The garbage includes most Dems and Republicans as most Congress people and Senators voted to go to war against Iraq back in 2003.
    It was an Irishman who several years ago told me that he had been in Egypt when he discovered that Soros was supporting the Arab Spring with many millions of dollars.

    How many soldiers really self reflect-is it 10% (like Winn did in movie The Thin Red Line)?
    How many soldiers are informed such as even hearing about PNAC and the rest of the warmongers- probably less than 5%-or is it 1-2%?

    Read More
  7. @Lost american
    Peter- where did you get the information on Gallipoli and Dieppe? I know that leaders are sleazy and I tend to believe you but I would have to study it and look for sources.

    Docherty & MacGregor have written an excellent account about how the Gallipoli campaign, was set up to fail: firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com use their listbox to select the term Gallipoli. Its a dozen short articles.
    Suffices to mention as an appeticer that the British had a superbly wellinformed expert on the Turkish defences but for no reasonable explanation abstained from selecting him for the task. Kitchener and Churchill’s own notes confirm that campaign was conciously setup to fail.
    The motive was that they were determined to prevent Russia from taking the straits, something the British had promised them to get them into the war in the first place. So the British pretended they would do it for them, and the great losses convinced the Russians it had been a genuine effort, so they didnt make peace with Germany. As the war went on Germany was worn down needing 3-4 times greater proportion mobilized than Russia. In 1917 Russia was ready to go for the straits themselves. That was why the February revolution took place. Even Lenin admitted in a book that French and British capitalists were sponsoring it although the version for Soviet citizens was censored.
    The British admitted having informed the Germans about Dieppe but pretended they were mistaken about the date. I think 6000 Canadiens were betrayed in this manner.

    http://senseofevents.blogspot.se/2012/08/british-intelligence-told-germans-in.html

    The British had no intention of shortening the war at that stage. Only later when the Soviets were advancing far westwards. You shouldnt be too surprised about Churchill sacrificing them Canadians when having learnt about how he sacrificed many more att Gallipoli.

    Read More
  8. @Verymuchalive
    The British did not deliberately lose Gallipoli, the Dieppe Raid or the Norway Campaign. They failed due to errors, mismanagement or superior tactics and strategy of the enemy. No serious Historian would entertain your claims.
    You are a conspiracy nutjob, go back whence you came.

    Serious historians are all marginalized and have a hard time getting their works published. The excellent and indeed serious historians Docherty and MacGregor mentioned in my answer to Lostamerican, are a case in point. Their publisher was bought by Random House, who prevented the publishing of the sequel to their treatise about the years leading to WW1. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307
    That sequel presumably is the content you may find on their website.
    Establishment history is a whorehouse. And they know they are a bunch of liars. It pays much better.
    When you get past your conspiracy-denial phase you will have many more shocks. The world is a theater where puppets of the wealthy are acting out. And they and their military often have opposite aims. Several examples in D & As texts.
    There is more about the Norway campaign than has been declassified by the allied side. Mannerheim of Finland knew but was not allowed to include it in his memoirs. Erkki Hautamäki in ‘Finland in the Eye of the Storm’(I dont know if there is any English edition) claims Britain France and the USSR made a secret deal shortly after the Molotov/Ribbentropp pact in which they would occupy Scandinavia and then attack Germany from the north. I am quite sure the British never intended to fulfil their part of the deal. Tell me if you want me to continue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lost american
    Thank you Peter- I pay attention to everyone. The USA is a litigious society but soldiers cannot sue if a military operation is an absolute waste- poorly conceived and so on.
    I am long past calling things conspiracy theories but I look to many writers and investigatops to come up with truth.
  9. @Peter Grafström
    Serious historians are all marginalized and have a hard time getting their works published. The excellent and indeed serious historians Docherty and MacGregor mentioned in my answer to Lostamerican, are a case in point. Their publisher was bought by Random House, who prevented the publishing of the sequel to their treatise about the years leading to WW1. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307
    That sequel presumably is the content you may find on their website.
    Establishment history is a whorehouse. And they know they are a bunch of liars. It pays much better.
    When you get past your conspiracy-denial phase you will have many more shocks. The world is a theater where puppets of the wealthy are acting out. And they and their military often have opposite aims. Several examples in D & As texts.
    There is more about the Norway campaign than has been declassified by the allied side. Mannerheim of Finland knew but was not allowed to include it in his memoirs. Erkki Hautamäki in 'Finland in the Eye of the Storm'(I dont know if there is any English edition) claims Britain France and the USSR made a secret deal shortly after the Molotov/Ribbentropp pact in which they would occupy Scandinavia and then attack Germany from the north. I am quite sure the British never intended to fulfil their part of the deal. Tell me if you want me to continue.

    Thank you Peter- I pay attention to everyone. The USA is a litigious society but soldiers cannot sue if a military operation is an absolute waste- poorly conceived and so on.
    I am long past calling things conspiracy theories but I look to many writers and investigatops to come up with truth.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored