Is America on the path to 'permanent war'?

[Michael Hogan]

from cnn.com

John Blake, CNN

November 24, 2010

Is America on the path to 'permanent war'?

When the president decided to send more troops to a distant country during an unpopular war, one powerful senator had enough.

He warned that the U.S. military could not create stability in a country "where there is chaos ... democracy where there is no tradition

of it, and honest government where corruption is almost a way of life."

"It's unnatural and unhealthy for a nation to be engaged in global crusades for some principle or idea while neglecting the needs of its

own people," said Sen. J. William Fulbright, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in 1966 as the Vietnam War escalated.

Fulbright's warning is being applied by some to Afghanistan today. The U.S. is still fighting dubious wars abroad while ignoring needs at home,

says Andrew J. Bacevich, who tells Fulbright's story in his new book, "Washington Rules: America's Path To Permanent War."

Full article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/23/war.afghan/

[John Dolva]

wiki

''The concept of permanent war economy originated in 1944 with an article by Ed Sard (alias Frank Demby, Walter S. Oakes and T.N. Vance, a Third Camp Socialist, who predicted a post-war arms race. He argued at the time that the USA would retain the character of a war economy; even in peacetime, US military expenditure would remain large, reducing the percentage of unemployed compared to the 1930s. He extended this analysis in 1950 and 1951.^[1] The CEO of General Electric and vice-chairman of the War Production Board, Charles Edward Wilson ("Electric Charlie," not to be confused with "Engine Charlie," Charles Erwin Wilson of General Motors) had already argued for the continuation of large scale military spending in a speech at the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Dinner of the Army Ordnance Association on January 19,1944. Although he did not use the term "Permanent War Economy" he did argue for an institutionalized war economy —ie. a semi-command economy to be directed by corporation executives, based on military industry, and funded by government. Wilson argued for this system for purely military reasons. He did not make any argument for a "military Keynesianism". The term refers to the economic component within the military-industrial complex (MIC) (aka. "the Iron Triangle") whereby the collusion between militarism and war profiteering are manifest as a permanently subsidised industry. Wilson warned at the close of World War II that the US must not return to a civilian economy, but must keep to a "permanent war economy.''

It is also referred to perpetual war and I think The Strategy of Tension needs to be considered. Perhaps one can also consider Imperial Romes Ceasars saying '' Divide and Rule''. (doubts about whether it is correctly quoted when stated as divcide and conquer.)

[Guest Tom Scully]

On "a path to"??? We've arrived, baby, since the day of 11 September, and some argue, at least back to the Korean war era.

Without perpetual war as an excuse for imperial presidential "powers" the office of the president must come up with a new fabrication to justify the president acting in criminal disregard for the oath of office he swears to uphold, "to preserve and to protect the Constitution of the United States".

The framers new that it would be too tempting for the president to betray his countrymen by invoking extra constitutional authority with the excuse that he must do so to "protect the country" or the security of the country during a time of heightened threat, so they required the president to take an oath to protect the constitution above all else.

It is now a tradition for U.S. presidents to engage in an ever more ambitious grab for power by asserting that the circumstances are "special" due to the fact that it is a "time of war", war declared through no constitutionally mandated process, by congress; even at that.

Can you imagine how much more intensely a president would move to further consolidate his own power and authority and abuse the constitutional limits created to restrain him from doing just that, if congress ever actually declared a state of war?

The coup has already taken place and we are living amidst the ashes of an incinerated constitution that was once a model for the world. It was a model, but it was inconvenient vs. the ambitions of our presidents and their financial benefactors.

[Dawn Meredith]

On "a path to"??? We've arrived, baby, since the day of 11 September, and some argue, at least back to the Korean war era.

Without perpetual war as an excuse for imperial presidential "powers" the office of the president must come up with a new fabrication to justify the president acting in criminal disregard for the oath of office he swears to uphold, "to preserve and to protect the Constitution of the United States".

The framers new that it would be too tempting for the president to betray his countrymen by invoking extra constitutional authority with the excuse that he must do so to "protect the country" or the security of the country during a time of heightened threat, so they required the president to take an oath to protect the constitution above all else.

It is now a tradition for U.S. presidents to engage in an ever more ambitious grab for power by asserting that the circumstances are "special" due to the fact that it is a "time of war", war declared through no constitutionally mandated process, by congress; even at that.

Can you imagine how much more intensely a president would move to further consolidate his own power and authority and abuse the constitutional limits created to restrain him from doing just that, if congress ever actually declared a state of war?

The coup has already taken place and we are living amidst the ashes of an incinerated constitution that was once a model for the world. It was a model, but it was inconvenient vs. the ambitions of our presidents and their financial benefactors.

I believe the "war on terror" is a myth. Because I believe 9-11 was an inside job. I have been reading an article by Clinton in Time mag. About the election of 2000. Got me wondering about 9-11. Had Gore won the election would the attacks have occurred? Was this false falg the Cheney neocons or a more hidden power elite? If there was no 9-11 we would not be in two wars.

Dawn