June 12, 2003
Suppose You Wanted to Have a Permanent War
by Robert Higgs*
I’ll concede that having a permanent war might seem an odd thing to want, but
let’s put aside the “why” question for the time being, accepting that you
wouldn’t want it unless you stood to gain something important from it. If,
however, for reasons you found adequate, you did want to have a permanent war,
what would you need in order to make such a policy viable in a democratic
society such as the United States?
First, you would need that society to
have a dominant ideology--a widely shared belief system about social and
political relations--within which having a permanent war seems to be a desirable
policy, given the ideology‘s own content and the pertinent facts accepted by its
adherents. Something like American jingo-patriotism cum anti-communism might
turn the trick. It worked pretty well during the nearly half century of the Cold
War. The beauty of anti-communism as a covering ideology was that it could serve
to justify a wide variety of politically expedient actions both here and abroad.
The Commies, you’ll recall, were everywhere: not just in Moscow and Sevastopol,
but maybe in Minneapolis and San Francisco. We had to stay alert; we could never
let down our guard, anywhere.
Second, you would need periodic crises,
because without them the public becomes complaisant, unafraid, and hence
unwilling to bear the heavy burdens that they must bear if the government is to
carry on a permanent war. As Senator Arthur Vandenberg told Harry Truman in 1947
at the outset of the Cold War, gaining public support for a perpetual global
campaign requires that the government “scare hell out of the American people.”
Each crisis piques the people’s insecurities and renders them once again
disposed to pay the designated price, whether it takes the form of their
treasure, their liberties, or their young men’s blood. Something like the
(alleged) missile gap, the (alleged) Gulf of Tonkin attacks on U.S. naval
vessels, or the (actual!) hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran will do
nicely, at least for a while. Crises by their very nature eventually recede, and
new ones must come along--or be made to come along--to serve the current
need.
Third, you would need some politically powerful groups whose
members stand to gain substantially from a permanent war in terms of achieving
their urgent personal and group objectives. Call me crass, but I’ve noticed that
few people will stay engaged for long unless there‘s “something in it for
them.”
During the Cold War, the conglomeration of personally interested
parties consisted of those who form the military-industrial-congressional
complex (MICC). The generals and admirals thrived by commanding a large armed
force sustained by a lavish budget. The big defense contractors enjoyed ample
returns at minimal risk (because they could expect that should they screw up too
royally, a bailout would be forthcoming). Members of Congress who belonged to
the military oversight and appropriations committees could parlay their
positions into campaign contributions and various sorts of income in kind.
Presiding over the entire complex, of course, the president, his National
Security Council, and their many subordinates, advisers, consultants, and
hangers-on enjoyed the political advantages associated with control of a great
nation’s diplomatic and military affairs--not to speak of the sheer joy that
certain people get from wielding or influencing great power. No conspiracy here,
of course, just a lot of people fitting into their niches, doing well while
proclaiming that they were doing good (recall the ideology and the crisis
elements). All seeking only to serve the common public interest.
Absolutely.
The foregoing observations have been widely accepted by
several generations of students of the Cold War. Yet, now, you may protest, the
Cold War is over, the USSR nonexistent, the menace of communism kaput. Under
post-Cold War conditions, how can we have a permanent war? Well, all we need to
do is to replace the missing piece.
If the ideology of anti-communism can
no longer serve to justify a permanent war, let us put in its place the
overarching rationale of a “war on terrorism.” In fact, this substitution of
what President George W. Bush repeatedly calls “a new kind of war” amounts to an
improvement for the leading actors, because whereas the Cold War could not be
sustained once the USSR had imploded and international communism had toppled
into the dust bin of history, a war on terrorism, with all its associated
benefits, can go on forever. After all, so long as the president says that he
has intelligence information to the effect that “they” are still out there
conspiring to kill us all, who are we to dispute that the threat exists and must
be met? The smoke had scarcely cleared at Ground Zero when vice-president Dick
Cheney declared on October 19, 2001, that the war on terrorism “may never end.
It’s the new normalcy.”
Just as during the Cold War hardly any American
ever laid eyes on an honest-to-God Commie, although nearly everybody believed
that the Commies were lurking far and wide, so now we may all suppose that
anyone, anywhere might be a lethal terrorist in possession of a suitcase nuke or
a jug of anthrax spores. Indeed, current airport-security measures are premised
on precisely such a belief--otherwise it makes no sense to strip-search grandma
at Dulles International.
Potential terrorists are “out there,” no doubt,
in the wonderful world of Islam, an arc that stretches from Morocco across North
Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia to Malaysia, and on through
Indonesia to Mindanao, not to mention London, Amsterdam, and Hamburg. And that‘s
good, because it means that U.S. leaders must bring the entire outside world
into compliance with their stipulated rules of engagement for the war on
terrorism. It‘s a fine thing to dominate the world, an even finer thing to do so
righteously.
Better yet, the potential omnipresence of the terrorists
justifies U.S. leaders in their efforts to supercharge the
surveillance-and-police state here at home, with the USA PATRIOT Act, the
revival of the FBI’s COINTELPRO activities, and all the rest. Adios Bill of
Rights. The merest babe understands that these new powers will be turned to
other political purposes that have nothing whatever to do with terrorism.
Indeed, they have been already. As the New York Times reported on May 5,
2003, “the Justice Department has begun using its expanded counterterrorism
powers to seize millions of dollars from foreign banks that do business in the
United States” and “most of the seizures have involved fraud and
money-laundering investigations unrelated to terrorism.”
The
war-on-terrorism rationale has proved congenial to the American public, who have
swallowed bogus government assurances that the so-called war is making them more
secure. Much of this acceptance springs, no doubt, from the shock that many
Americans experienced when the terrorist attacks of September 11 proved so
devastating. Ever alert, the president’s national security adviser Condoleeza
Rice asked the National Security Council immediately afterward “to think
seriously about ‘how do you capitalize on these opportunities’ to fundamentally
change American doctrine and the shape of the world in the wake of September
11.” The president’s most powerful and influential subordinates--Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and their coterie--then set in motion a series of
actions (and a flood of disinformation) to seize the day, measures that
culminated in the military invasion and conquest first of Afghanistan and then
of Iraq, among many other things. Public opinion polls continue to show
exceptionally high approval ratings for “the job the president is doing,” so at
the White House everyone is merry indeed.
Likewise, the military
component of the MICC has entered into fat city. During the fiscal year 2000,
before George Bush had taken office, Department of Defense outlays amounted to
$281 billion. Just four years later, assuming that Congress gives the president
what he has requested for fiscal year 2004, the department’s budget will be at
least $399 billion--an increase of 42 percent. No wonder the generals and
admirals are dancing in the corridors at the Pentagon: all this loot and wartime
citations and promotions to boot!
The flush times for the officer corps
have spilled over handsomely onto the big arms contractors, whose share prices
have been bucking the trend of the continuing stock-market meltdown nicely
during the past couple years. With only a single exception, all the major
weapons systems have survived funding threats, and their manufacturers can look
forward to decades of well-paid repose as they supply models B, C, D, and so
forth, as well as all the remunerative maintenance and repairs, operational
training, software upgrades, and related goods and services for their Cold
War-type weaponry in search of an suitable enemy. In the immortal words of
Boeing vice-president Harry Stonecipher, “the purse is now open.” As the Wall
Street Journal reported, “The antiterror campaign is making for some
remarkably flush times for the military, and the need for hard choices on
weapons systems has all but evaporated.”
Congress savors this situation,
too. In the current circumstances, the members can more easily use spending on
guns to grease their own reelection skids. “In a bipartisan voice,” reported the
New York Times, “lawmakers on Capitol Hill are telling the Pentagon that
they want to increase spending on conventional big-ticket weapons programs,
particularly warships and planes.” Moreover, many members continue to maneuver
to stop or delay base closures that might save the Pentagon billions of dollars
in expenses that even the generals regard as pointless.
Amid the
all-around rejoicing, however, the power elite appreciate that nearly two years
have elapsed since September 11, 2001, and the public’s panic has begun to
subside. That won’t do. Accordingly, on June 9 the government released a report
that there is a “high probability” of an al-Qaida attack with a weapon of mass
destruction in the next two years. If no such attach should eventuate, of
course, then the authorities will have to release another such terrifying report
at the appropriate time. Got to keep people on their toes--“vigilant,” as the
Homeland Security czar likes to say.
So there you have it: the war on
terrorism--the new permanent war--is a winner. The president loves it. The
military brass loves it. The bigwigs at Boeing and Lockheed love it. Members of
Congress love it. The public loves it. We all love it.
Except, perhaps,
that odd citizen who wonders whether, all things considered, having a permanent
war is truly a good idea for the beleaguered U.S. economy and for the liberties
of the American people.