Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (3 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   6 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

A Neocon Re-write of American History

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 7/31/10

From Consortium News

Boot constructed what purported to be a historical narrative demonstrating why it was always a mistake for the U.S. government to trim back its standing army, arguing that such cutbacks caused troubles from the Whiskey Rebellion after the Revolutionary War to George W. Bush's botched occupation of Iraq.

The lesson, according to Boot, is to maintain a very large military even after a major conflict ends and to view the current defense budget which is approaching nearly half of what the entire world spends on military costs as "a bargain considering the historic consequences of letting our guard down."

And Boot is not just some obscure neocon hawk. He is Gen. David Petraeus's BFF. In one recently publicized e-mail exchange between them, they discussed how the general could back away from his congressional testimony which mildly criticized Israel. At the end of one e-mail, Petraeus thanked Boot with a sideways happy face made from a colon, a hyphen and a closed parenthesis, :-) .

Boot also is employed by the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, so his writings are treated with great respect in Washington opinion circles.

However, Boot's excursion into alternative history was intellectually dishonest. After all, the problem with imagining a different history i.e. assuming that an altered course of action would have averted some later crisis is that no one can tell whether that's true or whether some other negative consequence might have resulted from the alternative scenario.

For instance, the American Founders were profoundly suspicious of large standing armies and the powerful executives (usually a king) who directed them. They knew European history and the devastation that these armies could inflict on both targeted "enemy" populations and their own people, given the taxation and conscripts needed for war.

So, when the Founders opted for a Republic, they placed most of the power in the hands of the legislators in Congress, not with the chief executive, the President. The accompanying decision to maintain a relatively modest professional army and navy was deliberate, out of concern that otherwise the President might be tempted to use the military to assert dictatorial powers.

And even if a dictatorship didn't result, a large military would surely be a temptation for generals, admirals and an ambitious "war president" to entangle the United States in unnecessary conflicts.

Consequences from such rash military actions and the unavoidable trampling of civil liberties that comes with war could have been far more destructive to the Republic than the challenges that Boot blames on a smaller military, such as having to fight the Barbary pirates and the War of 1812 in the nation's early years or the failure to stop the "anti-American revolutions in Nicaragua and Iran" in the 1970s.

Indeed, the fact that Boot suggests that the post-Vietnam drawdown of the U.S. military was partly responsible for the defeat of corrupt pro-U.S. dictators in Nicaragua and Iran reveals the underlying danger of his argument. Is he suggesting that a larger imperial American military would have intervened in those civil wars to prop up client dictators?

Apparently, in Boot's view, the answer is yes. After the failed war in Vietnam with 58,000 Americans and millions of Indochinese dead he seems to think that the United States should have been ready to send expeditionary forces to Nicaragua and to Iran to suppress popular uprisings.

What Boot and other neocons envision for American citizens is endlessly footing the bill for a global police force, one that would wage war anytime and anywhere to defend some vaguely defined U.S. interest, essentially what President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney set off to do after the 9/11 attacks with catastrophic results.

Yet that is not a lesson the neocons have learned.

Appreciating the Founders

Considering the interminable wars that the neocons favor and the painful side effects on the American people one has a deeper appreciation for the wisdom of the Founders in their effort to balance the need for an adequate defense against the negatives that accompany a bloated war machine.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://www.consortiumnews.com

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The CIA/Likud Sinking of Jimmy Carter

What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?

Ron Paul's Appalling World View

Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

The Disappearance of Keith Olbermann

A Perjurer on the US Supreme Court

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The Neocons and their ilk proclaim we need a large... by Dennis Kaiser on Sunday, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:25:28 AM
The neocons are doing a great job of destroying De... by liberalsrock on Sunday, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:36:06 AM
In the 1930's, General Butler warned Americans in ... by Paul Sheldon Foote on Sunday, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:48:30 PM
but another designated neocon currently is more bi... by Margaret Bassett on Sunday, Aug 1, 2010 at 4:16:25 PM
I disagree with Mr. Boot. The war on terror is not... by Gustav Wynn on Sunday, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:15:04 PM
☼ I haven't run into anyone suggesting the Missi... by iamjmb on Monday, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:17:51 AM