Today, NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, issued the following statement about NATO’s military response to increased Russian government manuevering in eastern Ukraine:
Today, we agreed on a package of further military measures to reinforce our collective defence and demonstrate the strength of Allied solidarity.
We will have more planes in the air, more ships on the water, and more readiness on the land (read boots on the ground).
For example, air policing aircraft will fly more sorties over the Baltic region. Allied ships will deploy to the Baltic Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean and elsewhere, as required. Military staff from Allied nations will deploy to enhance our preparedness, training and exercises. Our defence plans will be reviewed and reinforced.
We will start to implement these measures straight away. More will follow, if needed, in the weeks and months to come.
The NATO Secretary General’s announcement will be music to the ears of those who have been calling for more U.S. troop deployments to eastern Europe in response to Putin’s provocations. Last month in the National Interest magazine, for example, Dick Kirckus, a former “Chair of Warfighting Strategy at the U.S. Marine Corps University” wrote:
Today, the most vulnerable members of NATO in the East Baltic Sea region share a common border with Russia and desperately want American boots on the ground – not combat engineers constructing an antimissile system in Poland to evaporate Iranian rockets – to deter a reckless Russian military provocation. The prospect that U.S. troops will die should Russian troops cross their borders will give meaning to Washington’s pledge to honor Article Five guarantees. After all, the Americans have demonstrated on numerous occasions that if challenged, they will fight.
Got that? No mere missiles and rockets will suffice to deter Putin, only people willing to sacrifice their lives in European military chess matches will be enough to deter Putin’s westward aggression. The glaring flaw in Kirckus’ thesis is that Americans of our generation have by no means demonstrated a willingness to fight and die in pointless wars. On 9/11 our nation was attacked by a ruthless criminal gang, which for a period of time found sanctuary under the ragtag rule of the Taliban. Eventually, most Americans, as evidenced by their refusal to enlist in the military, came to see the demise of the Taliban’s governance and going after the terrorists as the appropriate response to those horrific attacks on our own country; to shed our own blood in pointless wars, most Americans have concluded, is wrong.
We don’t want it, and thus, we aren’t doing it. Period.
And yet, there is a gap – a grand canyon – between mainstream America’s proper sense of security obligation to the country and the military systems to which we are, at present, legally bound. The collective democratic consciousness, which is averse to becoming embroiled in foreign wars, is on one side of the canyon, while the professional warmongers, like Mr. Kirckus quoted above, sit on the other side of the canyon. Every single day the former, the collective democratic consciousness, are sending the latter, the professional warmongers, Western Union moneygrams and messages in the form of tax dollars and institutional structures, which sustain their warmongering; warmongering, of course, that in turn erodes our civil liberties landscape here at home, thus destroying the very purpose of our nation.
To call this situation dysfunctional would be a gross understatement.
By sustaining the for-pay soldiery, for example, we are supplying the warmongers with a continual stream of young Americans who, tragically, have not had anyone in their lives to tell them, or at least tell them effectively, the following: to earn a paycheck to engage in a shooting war is not only a knock against the sanctity of the human lives who may be killed by your military actions, it is also a knock against the sanctity of your own human life. So long as we, on the antiwar majority side of the canyon fail to make that abundantly clear, in our laws and in our words, we will be sending those Western Union moneygrams and telegrams to the minority – the warmongers like Mr. Kirckus – on the other side of the canyon.
Ditto for the current contours of our nation’s role in NATO: Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former Danish prime minister who strongly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is quite literally within his rights to use his position to help rhetorically, and thus politically, edge the United States toward military confrontation with Russia: Those of us on the antiwar side of the American canyon are sending him, again every day, our Western Union moneygrams and telegrams. Indeed, so long as Article Five of the NATO Charter, which guarantees the automatic collective defense of all NATO members, remains in the charter without any periodic review by, and consultation with, the American people, Mr. Rasmussen will continue to abide by the Western Union telegram we are continually sending him – even though the number of us who would actually be willing to die in a European game of chess is utterly miniscule. Indeed, our American ancestors may have had lots of flaws, but at least they had the good sense to realize the human futility and human degradation of sacrificing one’s life, and the lives of their children, for European political chess matches.
Ensuring that the mainstream antiwar values we hold on our side of the canyon are reflected in actual U.S. foreign policy would require reform, which requires a discourse of reform. That means ideas, counter-ideas, add-on ideas, counter-arguments, etc. for the aforementioned.
One reform idea to help ensure that Main Street Americans – the majority of us on that antiwar side of the canyon – do not get dragged in the blink of an eye into a costly, destructive war over Putin’s European chess games would be this: Amend our own Constitution to require that any provision of any treaty to which the United States is a signatory, and which calls for the collective military defense of foreign nations, must be continuously ratified by the Congress, at minimum, on a quarterly basis – namely every three months.
For the American people’s relationship with NATO – a relationship of literally existential significance – that would mean this: Every three months, we would have the chance to call, write, visit, etc. with our elected representatives in Congress about whether Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which guarantees the collective defense of its member states, is prudent for America in our time and place, and in accord with our moral values on matters of war and peace.
As in all of our nation’s political debates, some sides will win the day, and others will lose. That’s the American way. As I explained in this Tikkun Daily post from last year, and in subsequent posts, I have been extremely disappointed with America’s response to Bashar al-Assad’s ongoing slaughter and torture of the Syrian people. I think a Western-imposed no-fly zone should have been in place, and countless lives could have been saved. But, those of us who supported some kind of intervention in Syria to stop Assad’s slaughter machine lost the debate. That’s the way democracy works and we have to accept it, while still exercising our First Amendment rights about what we believe.
The way that democracy should not work is for our political leaders to outlandishly claim that a collective defense treaty, like the NATO Charter, crafted at the outset of the Cold War before most Americans were born, and crafted in the context of constitutional treaty system that has not been substantively updated since 1787, somehow even remotely reflects “the will and resolve of the American people.” Really, what a load of bull.
In addition to providing a modern, much-needed democratic check on our high stakes participation with NATO, by ensconcing such a treaty requirement into our Constitution we would be sending a much-needed message to our heavily-dependent European NATO allies, whichmight be verbalized like this:
“Dear friends, why not try crafting proactive foreign policies toward Russia that would seek to bring about the eventual abolition of the menacing standing army that threatens your countries, rather than placing your trust in the tiny minority of Americans who relish, and profit from, the practice of war.”
To see one suggestion for a constitutional modernization of America’s collective defense treaty requirements, see Section 10 of the proposed constitutional amendment here:
http://tyrannydissolution.wordpress.com
Essential Democratic Constitutional Laws, NATO Charter, UN Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights Provisions & Mandates to Declare War before Funding It? Non-Violent Sanctions?
” Eventually, most Americans, as evidenced by their refusal to enlist in the military, came to see the demise of the Taliban’s governance and going after the terrorists as the appropriate response to those horrific attacks on our own country; to shed our own blood in pointless wars, most Americans have concluded, is wrong.”
I have no idea what this statement means. Are there some words missing? It seems to me to be gibberish.
Dear DMS,
If you have some evidence that most Americans of warfighting age are and have been willing to shed their own blood for the post-9/11 wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, please provide that evidence, as I think the evidence proves just the opposite: Even when we were horrifically attacked on our own soil, the vast, vast majority of Americans said a flat “no” to sacrifing their lives for unsound wars.
The writer I reference above, Mr. Kirckus, is suggesting that the willingness of a tiny minority of Americans who enlisted in those wars is somehow proof that “Americans” as a whole are willing to shed their blood. I am challenging him on that patently outlandish assertion, which he incorporates into his call for more U.S. troops in eastern Europe.
Thank you for your question. Section 10 of the tyranny dissolution amendment I’ve argued for would subject this country’s warmongers – who routinely make superficial assertions about “America’s willingness to fight” which simply do not square with our wider social reality – to a far higher standard of intellectual accountability. That section can be found here:
http://tyrannydissolution.wordpress.com
I haven’t suggested disagreeing with you.
I literally do not understand your sentence and what you are saying. I think that your sentence structure needs a bit of tikkun.
Here’s your original para:
“Eventually, most Americans, as evidenced by their refusal to enlist in the military, came to see the demise of the Taliban’s governance and going after the terrorists as the appropriate response to those horrific attacks on our own country; to shed our own blood in pointless wars, most Americans have concluded, is wrong.”
Do you mean something like:
“Most Americans refused to enlist in the military. Refusal to enlist is evidence that it was wrong (to go after the Taliban and the terrorists.) Most Americans have concluded that it is wrong to shed our own blood in pointless wars and that warring on terrorists was not an appropriate response to those horrific attacks on our own country.”
Is that what you are saying? Or similar?
I don’t think we are going to agree but I’d like to be sure I understand what you are saying.
Dear DMS,
There is no substantive difference between my sentence structure and what you have offered, other than your use of the word “warring,” which is already implied in my sentence.
If A) you believe that going after terrorists requires warring, as opposed to utilizing existing laws, and further building international law and its enforcement capability, to try terrorists at the International Criminal Court for their crimes against humanity, B) you have never enlisted in the post-9/11 wars, C) never even tried to enlist if you happen to be past the traditional age of Army enlistment, as Major Steven Hutchison did at 58, and was killed by a roadside bomb in 2009 in Iraq at the age of 60, that means D) you are an “active-duty” chickenhawk.
(Like my sentence structure there?)
Though sadly they still number in the millions, and are spread all across our land, though most seem to reside in red states, active-duty chickenhawks are still a minority and thus their political support is not necessary for passage of the tyranny dissolution amendment I’ve suggested. Besides, trying to persuade people who have hearts of stone – like the active-duty chickenhawks – is impossible and therefore futile. A transformation of their stony hearts into hearts of flesh
(Ezekiel 11: 19) would have to happen before any moral persuasion could occur.
In a nutshell, if you are an active-duty chickenhawk, I have no interest in trying to persuade you on the merits of my proposal. On the other hand, if you are not, and you are simply more of an active-duty sentence-structure hawk, I would be glad to try to persuade you on the merits of this reform amendment.
Sincerely,
Timothy Villareal
More information on the late Steven Hutichison can be found here:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30752514/ns/us_news-military/t/-year-old-army-soldier-oldest-killed-iraq/#.U1EDQG7n_tQ
Humm. I thought I already left a reply. I’ll wait and check back later. I agree with the major emphasis of the article and am sad that the US news media, wholly corporate owned, have taught the young people that do sign up, usually for financial reasons, help with school, job training – that they are doing the right thing.
Later, they return home emotionally and mentally scared. The suicide rate among vets today averages 22 a day, and those are just the ones now returning from the current adventure, mainly in Kabul now, as most of the country is controlled by war lords. Do you wonder why there is a new heroin problem in the US? Look at where we are fighting and who the CIA is supporting
Dear Ms. Minard,
Thank you for your comment and for reminding all of us how important it is to hold that tension between a firm rejection of the militarism that has devastated so many lives at home and abroad while still making sure our own hearts are attuned to the sufferings of the veterans.
If we ended the 500 billion dollar a year for-pay soldiery – meaning every American who enlists in the Army or Marines would do so without any pay incentive and strictly for reasons of conscience to protect all civilians, domestic and foreign, from harm – we would have so many billions of dollars available to properly care for those veterans whose lives have been devasted by the current for-pay soldiery system.
I would like to see Congress set up and fully fund programs, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, not the militarisitic Veterans Administration, to offer combat veterans the following:
-Automatic rental housing vouchers and food vouchers for combat veterans for a minimum five-year period, and renewable on an annual case-by-case basis thereafter.
-Automatic vouchers for private sector psychological care, including susbtance abuse care facilities if necessary, for the rest of their lives, no questions asked.
All of that sounds like a ton of money, but if we, as a nation, can connect the dots between the sheer amorality of paying men and women to engage in combat and the catastrophic moral and stragetic consequences to our country and humanity, and then end that system, there would literally be hundreds of billions more in the federal treasury, each year, to tap for that healing. This is a moral imperative for our country.
Sincerely,
Timothy Villareal
No worries, we’re not marching to war with Russia.
Dear Rich,
On September 10th 2001, no one thought that within two years this country would be embroiled in two wars that would result in the deaths of over 100,000 people and still counting, civilian and soldier alike. World events, as we know, can change on a dime.
Please offer your criticism, if you have any, for why Article Five of the U.N. Charter, which could draw the U.S. into a war with Russia in the blink of an eye, should not at least be subjected to continual democratic review by, and the consent of, the American people, as I call for in this post.
That would be far more fruitful than offering prognostications about foreign affairs that even the sharpest and most seasoned minds in the foreign policy profession struggle with.
Peace and blessings,
Timothy Villareal
You forgot one thing. Russia sits on the Security Council and has veto power. Absent Russia, China would likely use its veto.But Russia would not allow the UNSC yo open hostilities with….Russia.
Dear Rich,
Not even I, as a liberal and one who believes that an end to our immoral for-pay soldiery is of utmost urgency, would suggest that a veto by Russia or China on the U.N. Security Council should halt coordinated efforts to better the world; for instance, like imposing a no-fly zone over the murderous Assad regime in Syria. I assure you that the warmongers in this country, especially those who would make bank in a conflict with Russia, have far less respect for the veto power of the P5.
Besides, stick to the issue, please: Why do you personally believe that the American people should be bound by collective military defense treaties which were ratified before many of us were even born, and which could bring our nation to war in the blink of an eye?
Sincerely,
Timothy Villareal
Timothy, I stayed on topic. You mentioned UN charter, I read it and responded. Just an FYI, a no fly zone over Syria represents a hostile act. Attpts to break such a zone would result in military action. I just wanted to be clear on that point. Otherwise not to worry, we are not going to war at a blink of an eye.
Dear Rich,
You are clear-eyed on the fact that a no-fly zone over Syria could result in retaliatory strikes by the Assad regime. The imposition of that no-fly zone would be to disable Assad from carrying out mass atrocities on the Syrian people. The only ‘hostility” a no-fly zone over Syria would represent would be hostility toward a tyrant’s ability to mass murder innocent civilians.
By the way, the UN Charter is not at all the subject of this post. The reform I mentioned related to Article 5 of the NATO Charter, and the American people’s ability to weigh in with their elected representatives, and on a continual basis, about such collective defense provisions.
If you have any thoughts on that principle — our government operating according to the consent of the governed — I’d be glad to hear.
Peace,
Timothy Villareal