Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

What Progressives Have in Common with the Military

By Lorelei Kelly, In These Times. Posted January 30, 2007.


An alliance between these two seemingly disparate groups could help address problems in Iraq and build future policy.
Advertisement

When Army Col. Ike Wilson returned home in March 2004 from a 12 month deployment in Iraq, one thought remained with him: "Why such a deliberate plan to fight the war, but none to win the peace to follow?"

Wilson, a West Point professor with years of military planning experience, knew that placing this question at the the center of national security policy discussions was the only way to truly learn from Iraq and Afghanistan. He soon founded the Beyond War Project as a hub to educate both the military and the public about a new vision for war, peace and America's role in the world. Thus far, he's signed up participants ranging from Cornell University's Peace Studies Program to the U.S. Air Force.

Wilson's approach typifies today's professional military education, which includes a breadth of topics that might surprise those more familiar with the liberal arts. In contrast to linear Cold War themes like strategic nuclear deterrence, military schools emphasize humanities subjects such as language, international cooperation and world culture. Such lessons arrived in these academic settings in the early part of the decade--though it took the terror attacks of 9/11 and two offensive U.S. military actions before elected leaders really paid attention to the dramatic shift from Cold War thinking.

Today, nearly every general that testifies before Congress claims that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan do not have purely military solutions. This sea change means that many members of the military and progressives are philosophically much closer than either believes and they are both hurt by the lack of meaningful interaction. Understanding and aligning with the military around shared concerns could be a crucial new strategy for the left.

-------------------------

I taught peace studies at Stanford University in California before moving to Washington in 1997 to work on Capitol Hill for Rep. Elizabeth Furse (D-Ore.). In 1995, Congress suffered a semi-lobotomy. The new conservative majority--under the guidance of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America--cut many specialist staff and dismantled bipartisan educational organizations such as the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus. My job was to establish an informal study group to educate staff on new national security issues.

As I set out to find important security initiatives to bring to Capitol Hill, I learned that most of the creative new government programs were in the military. I enrolled in classes--free to Hill staff--offered by the Air Command and Staff College and the National Defense University. I spent days at the Army War College, where the challenges of peace were on every conference agenda. While learning about topics ranging from peacekeeping to AIDS prevention, I came to know numerous military professionals eager to share knowledge about international problem solving--most based on recent experience.

Montgomery McFate is an anthropologist who advises the military on the value of cultural knowledge. She points out how warfighting now sits at the intersection of traditional military activity and what is known as "human security."

"Technology is not the key to victory in Iraq or Afghanistan, where so much of our effort is focused on building infrastructure, increasing their ability to build a government, establishing the rule of law and promoting civil society," says McFate. "U.S. forces need to understand the human terrain in which they are operating."

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, good government is our exit strategy. And if there is a good news story about Iraq, it is that U.S. soldiers have already applied lessons learned from the peace operations in the '90s. In Haiti, the Balkans and even in Somalia, the importance of culturally sensitive conflict resolution was learned.

Good government is also a preventive strategy. As a whole, post-9/11 security threats are broad and inclusive, and require a variety of approaches--military, political, social and economic. Because so much of the institutional memory of post-Cold War security policy resides in the Defense Department, whoever figures out a way to engage and to learn from our military's experiences will have a wealth of policy ideas for moving forward.

-------------------------

Successful "branding" by conservatives has made liberals seem weak on national security. It has also created a lowest common denominator political discourse--especially the defense budget. The vast majority of members vote for defense bills that continue to fund a Cold War national security apparatus. The absence of a loyal opposition and real debate about national security has led us to where we are today: The U.S. military finds itself in a situation that it would have never gotten into on its own.

November's vote provides a timely opening to begin this conversation. With a new Democratic majority in Congress and the departure of Donald Rumsfeld, liberals must see past their anger over Iraq and grab the opportunity to learn from an unaccustomed source. Building relationships with military professionals will pay huge policy dividends when the time comes to pursue fundamental change on national security priorities.

The cost of the war has now passed half a trillion dollars--on top of a $400 billion plus defense budget. A more rational budget will soon become imperative, and progressives can be in the vanguard instead of on the margin by including real military needs in their list of spending priorities before diverting the conversation back to domestic issues. They can also consistently de-link defense spending from war spending--after Iraq, the Army will need to be rebuilt after its experience in Iraq. The rise of a cohort of military advocates from the left would mark an important change: Confident progressive voices joining the debate over the appropriate mission of American armed forces.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, peace, military

Lorelei Kelly is the director of the Real Security Initiative at the White House Project. She also blogs at TheHuffingtonPost.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Biggest and bestest and fastest....
Posted by: Captainmagic on Jan 30, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Army in the whole universe and you are going to use it on "that" ENEMY......Lookout he's over there....No.. No they are are over here.....exactly WHO is THE enemy pray tell.....Um... we reserve the right to go and have another beer while you go off and find your enemy....Talk about the most expensive wild goose chase known to all man kind to date......and you think Iraqi's are dumbf@#ks.

America has so little intelligence left in it we are now seeing genetically modified artificial intelligence as the mainstay of a plastic nation.

And you know what, it's sheeple will pay billions for it...billions for gobfulls of bullshit...you are an embarassment to yourselves.....and I feel sorry for the victims of this USA fools folly......

I just want to know one thing.....What will you do to beat this terror thingy clusterf@#k. What next time...this one gets more silly by the minute.

Regards Captain

Silly if it wasn't so tragic.......one word......"Prosecute"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do we get the troops and the bases out of Iraq?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 30, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take a look at the massive military presence in Iraq: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military /facility/iraq-maps.htm How do we get US troops out of Iraq when the Bush program has been to build permanent military bases all over the country?

This is a very good article, but neither progressives nor military members have much say in Iraq policy, and Congress seems to be taking the slap-on-the-wrist approach, even though the US public opinion is against keeping permanent military bases in Iraq. What happened to the promises of hearings on all of the Bush crimes, from cooked intelligence on the IRaq war to the Cheney Energy Task Force report to the no-bid Iraqi reconstruction contracts? Bush is now installing political commisars in all branches of government, according to todays NYT.

There's little if any discussion in the corporate press about these bases or how to go about dismantling them (but what do you expect - the corporate press will barely even mention the oil motivation for going into Iraq in the first place, and they were the cheerleaders for the war as well!)

Meanwhile, Bush & Cheney fire anyone who disagrees with them and have brought in their 'counterinsurgency general', Petraeus, who claims he can solve everything with 20,000 troops in Baghdad. Bush is also continuing to push for an escalation with Iran, regardless of his public calls for a diplomatic solution - which looks a lot like the Iraq pre-war situation; for example see:

Leon Hadar, The Asia Times:

As a journalist who covered Washington in the months leading up to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, I recall the many "urban legends" that were circulating at that time. These included rumors about how Vice President Dick Cheney and then-secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld were pushing for a war with Iraq; about how their aides were pressuring the intelligence agencies to come up with "estimates" to help exaggerate the Iraqi WMD threat and Baghdad's alleged ties to al-Qaeda; about how the Americans and the British were secretly drawing up a strategy for a military confrontation with Iraq while pledging to continue to pursue diplomacy; and about how some of the leading Iraqi exiles lobbying for the "liberation" of Iraq, such as Ahmad Chalabi, were untrustworthy characters.

There's only one solution: impeachment and criminal prosecution of Bush and Cheney. These two are pyschotic sociopaths, and they will not stop voluntarily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reconstruction Racket
Posted by: ScottP on Jan 30, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently this author doesn't get it. The reason we bomb the electricity and water treatment infrastructure as one of the earliest steps in a conflict (e.g. Iraq and Lebanon) is for the reconstruction contracts. But it's not simply to line the pockets of Bechtel and the others. It's to remove infrastructure that is indigenous and that the locals can maintain themselves. The goal is to replace it with equipment that uses proprietary software and precision parts that locals cannot maintain. That makes them dependent on us. It achieves two main goals:
- continued maintenance contracts for US corporations (and resulting executive bonuses)
- a way to blackmail their leadership ("if you don't support us, we'll blockade you and you won't be able to provide water and power and your people will revolt")

Plus, as a bonus, infrastructure reconstruction can be considered a "legitimate" area for loans. And loans are another way to gain leverage against the country.

So the formula is:
- find an excuse for attack
- bomb the infrastructure
- give loans
- profit from the reconstruction contracts
- profit from the loans
- profit from the maintenance contracts
- gain control the country by always being able to shut down the infrastructure or economy if they get out of line again

To write about reconstruction and the military and ignore the reasons for it is to tell a half-truth that in no way serves the readers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Racket, You Betcha Posted by: hbw
» RE: econstruction Racket Posted by: Conservasaurus
» It's a War Crime Posted by: fanny666
» RE: It's a War Crime Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: It's a War Crime Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Reconstruction Racket Posted by: ScottP
» RE: econstruction Racket Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: econstruction Racket Posted by: djnoll
» Opportunity In Chaos Posted by: eddie torres
Chomsky at West Point
Posted by: fanny666 on Jan 30, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is an MP3 file of a talk Noam Chomsky gave at West Point. He was invited by the Philosophy 201 class- with 500 cadets- to give a guest lecture about the philosophical construct of "Just War Theory".

link to download page

The cadets are respectful and appreciative. I imagine they like being lied to about war even less than we do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They'd BETTER step up to the plate before it's too late
Posted by: xbj on Jan 30, 2007 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they don't want to be battling the entire rest of the planet, and sooner than later, the military had BETTER stage a military coup and QUICK before BushCo give the okay for the Israelis to attack us pretending to be Iran, and the inevitable "retaliatory" nuking of Iran.

Because come hell or high water, they're damn well going to do it unless they are perp walked out of the White House and locked away until their treason trials.

Like, tomorrow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's hard to find anything in common with people fighting an illegal war of aggression...
Posted by: badkitty on Jan 30, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Army Col. Ike Wilson returned home in March 2004 from a 12 month deployment in Iraq, one thought remained with him: "Why such a deliberate plan to fight the war, but none to win the peace to follow?"

Well, that may have been Col. Wilson's question, but my question is, why would he participate in an illegal war of aggression, in which our military has committed so many war crimes? Our military has disgraced everything for which the United States of America has (allegedly) stood by fighting this war in Iraq. I have something in common with Lieutenant Watada, who has refused to be deployed to Iraq, but I'd like to have as little as possible in common with Col. Wilson, including financing his paycheck/retirement with my tax dollars.

And as for the author of this story, General Marshall (Secretary of State?) and even General MacArthur managed to bring peace and reconstruction to Germany and Japan, who were actual enemies of our country, and who had so much of their infrastructure destroyed during the actual war. The State Department had a complete plan for reconstruction of Iraq, which was tossed out by Rumsfeld, so I don't really think we need the military to think up these ideas. At this point in time, I would say the military is most useless part of our government--it wastes more money (from nuclear weapons down to new ships for the navy) and apparently has no problem with fighting illegal wars. It's more of a danger to us than "terrorists". I've had enough, I don't feel I have anything in common with our military, and I'd like to see it abolished.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» we have to have compassion Posted by: fanny666
» RE: we have to have compassion Posted by: badkitty
» war is Hell Posted by: fanny666
So What, but I do hope...
Posted by: bob t on Jan 30, 2007 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This all may be and probably is true and if it is done correctly it is most commendable. The military could be learning that we can't blow up the entire world just because some ruthless and so called Pro-Life christian americans want to do exactly that, and do it just for profit/greed. But Bush, the repubs, and their corporatocracy cronies are doing the exact opposite and preventing the military from employing this new learning approach to world politics. As long as the repub party and people like Bush and his Family are involved in the political scene what is the point of the military learning things that so many of us have known since our college days in 1961. The military will never be able to use it. I most wholeheartedly applaud and endorse the military for studying these new things and just hope that someday they can put their new learning to real world use, unlike Colin Powell who did just the opposite as he gave away/sold his immense prestige to the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Damn it all, and he could have been president and I would have been the first one to vote for him but not now and not ever. Powell danced with the devil and lost his soul, as did his son Michael. Maybe it turned out for the better. Repugs are repugs first and real americans last or not at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 'Outsourced' Military, Blackwater et.al.
Posted by: bob t on Jan 30, 2007 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And another thing or three. What will the military do when they are given illegal orders, what good will all this new knowledge do. Ands what about how Bush/Cheney are outsourcing the military via more mechanization like predator drones and Blackwater and Titan and the newly State of the Union proposal for a civilian(CRC) corporate outsourced military which no one will control but Erik Prince(pres of Blackwater) and criminals like Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Rice/ Gonzales. One day the corporatocracy will have their own privatized military whgo will make their own decisions, with no congressional oversight and under secret control of the rethug party of thugs and bullies. As well as the supporters of the republican party, Big Religion and the Neocons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Military Waste Hurts the Troops
Posted by: fanny666 on Jan 30, 2007 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Support The Troops"
is a mantra rightwingers use to beat over the head anyone who does not support policies enacted by civilian Pentagon planners.

Well, how have the Republicans fared?

Here is a typical and recent example of their spending priorities:
In regards to vet benefits

These priorities have real-world results.

Marine contemplating suicide seeks help at VA mental health clinic. He's turned away and placed #26 on a waiting list. Four days later he kills himself. LINK

The military procurement system is hopelessly corrupt, just as Eisenhower predicted it would become. Here is an excellent panel discussion (MP3 format) on the most expensive piece of junk the US taxpayer has ever bought, the F-22. Listen to it, it highlights a lot of institutionalized problems that lead to a military which thinks it cannot afford body armor or VA benefits.

Notice that all these stories come from "pro-military" sources, which I suppose makes them anathema to many on the activist left. We shouldn't think like that. We have lots in common with these people. A single example: a while back, the Pentagon was trying to cut spending on benefits (for the 4,563rd time...), and so they have the VA do an audit on PTSD cases, to see if they were legitimate. Turns out, they were. So the Pentagon decided to rename the disorder "Temporary Adjustment Disorder" so that the benefits wouldn't have to last so long. Tell the average red-stater that story and he'll be angry. You and I may see it as a result of corporate influence, he may see it as a result of the pointy-headed bureaucrats in the government, but we can agree that it's not right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Law of the Sea
Posted by: polyquat50 on Jan 30, 2007 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The U.S. Navy is one of the strongest advocates for the Law of the Sea.".

For once you have one up on us. The Australian Government sank any respect for the Law of the Sea with the Siev X.

linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Military Is Our Working Class Sons And Daughters
Posted by: malcolmartin on Jan 30, 2007 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unwealthy children are being murdered from Darfur to the Sunni Triangle to New Orleans today and many more will die tomorrow but don’t mourn. Organize! Like the Africans in the Middle Passage and on slave plantations we must learn each other’s languages and begin to talk. Unions must reach across national boundaries to unite workers everywhere. If this or like messages reach you, begin sharing class-conscious thought with others, especially our working class sons and daughters in the US military. It’s simple, every other poor and working person is your brother or sister and every corporation and its wealthy owner is an enemy. It is not illegal yet so pick up a book by Marx or some other weapon and learn to use it. We must prepare for if history is a guide, leaders, warriors will soon step forward and point us in the direction of liberation.

Socialism is sharing, capitalism is selfishness! Sharing is survival, the unbridled selfishness bred of capitalism is death!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, Democracy Out of the Barrel of a Gun is not the Way!
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 30, 2007 1:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From my own experience, including with the military, this article both makes and misses various points. First of all, of course many officers realize the fallacy of waging war and having no plan or means for sustainable peace. But, the problem is still with what underneath many a military man or women really believes and will fight for. That is, that democracy can be achieved out of the barrel of a gun. That America's military is for "power projection." Take away the "we would really like to help you" routine and what is left is a belief in the power of the gun. The power of force. I believe that this article merely serves to exemplify some conflicted professor of military studies types along with the residual conflicted ideas of the somewhat still ideological young people in the service academies. They will soon learn that the purpose of the military is to quickly and efficiently kill in the service of American objectives. For this to change will require a radical and unforeseen change in the vision of America and its military. We pretend otherwise at our own peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Draft the "progressives"
Posted by: George Fleming on Jan 30, 2007 11:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author writes: "The rise of a cohort of military advocates from the left would mark an important change: Confident progressive voices joining the debate over the appropriate mission of American armed forces."

When confident progressives join the military, they will begin to have an effect on the mission. If they have "other priorities", such as instructing the military help where to dust, then their opinions on the military are not only worthless, they are nauseating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Draft the "progressives" Posted by: fanny666
Berlin Airlift
Posted by: Maryanne on Jan 31, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PBS presented the "Berlin Arilift" on the American Experience series. A lesson for these times can be learned from taking this part of history to heart.

The Berlin Airlift was not primarily intended to win over "hearts and minds" but was a pragmatic political decision so that we would not lose our influence over Berlin following WWII.

When the Soviets blocked food and fuel shipments, the US provided these to our "enemies" for months until the Soviets finally gave in and reopened the routes.

The end result of this was the positive reaction of the Berliners to their "conquerors". Children were won over with candy bars and playing with the soldiers occupying the city. Adults had food and fuel; they were also given egress from the city on the empty planes. Subseqently Germans in the western sector were given jobs with the air force (we did not have enough help on hand) to which they reacted first with surprise, then gratitude.

If we want to win over Iraqi hearts, the way to do this is NOT to bomb them to death, but to provide the necessities of life. Food, medical supplies, other essentials. Also jobs not tied to US contractors that farm them out, skimming off the profit while the workers are lucky to make enought to live.

There was once a saying that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. How much of the insurgency could be controlled if the ordinary people were won over by being treated like humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Berlin Airlift....nice Posted by: Captainmagic