The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America-By Robert Scheer

[kpete]

As Eisenhower warned:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted; only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.


The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America

By Robert Scheer, Twelve. Posted June 27, 2008.

Who, be they Democrat or Republican, among our top leaders, particularly in the aftermath of the tragedy of 9/11, dares rise to warn against the "Impostures of pretended patriotism"? Are any of them as truly devoted as was Washington to "the benign influence of good Laws under a free Government," or indeed to the nurturing of what the founders well understood to be an ever fragile experiment in representative democracy?

..............

The following is an excerpt from Robert Scheer's new book, The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America (Twelve, 2008).

War doesn't pay, nor does imperial ambition. That should be self-evident to anyone who has paid attention to the successful trajectory of the American experience, both politically and commercially, since the Republic's founding. It is a statement neither liberal nor conservative in orientation, and until recently it would have been accepted as a commonsense proposition by leading politicians of both political parties.

......................

The disconnect between the arsenal of the terrorist enemy and that which has been arrayed against it in the post-9/11 years more than affirms Eisenhower's warning about the "unwarranted influence" of the military-industrial complex. The good news, however, is that it derives from a power base fraught with contradictions. As we have seen in this book, much of what is demanded by the military machine is absurdly disproportionate to the task at hand. One wonders how the lobbyists and politicians even maintain a straight face as they argue, as did Senator Lieberman, for $2.5 billion submarines to fight terrorists without even a dinghy. I don't doubt that they will continue to make their case and that the money spent toward that end will secure political and pundit support, but it is wearing thin. So, too, the effort to manufacture crises with "rogue nations" and to continuously exaggerate the cohesion and power of the "terrorist" enemy. Nor will the Chinese- or the Russians-are-coming gambit work as both of those countries move deeper into the fray of the commercial markets rather than serving as props in the theater of war games.

..............

So, yes, there is much reason to hope that the military buildup of the George W. Bush years is an aberration, since the objective reality out there -- the utter lack of credible enemies with advanced weaponry -- makes it an increasingly difficult sell. Yet as I write those words, I hear again Eisenhower's warning and wonder if I am not being overly optimistic. Yes, the money we are spending is absurdly disproportionate to the task at hand, the weapons are making us less secure, not more so, powerful forces are unleashed that seek to find excuse for war, and we are dramatically increasing a fiscal debt that will deprive future generations of needed government services and programs. What is going on in our name is irrational, costly, and dangerous, but there are powerful vested interests that want to keep it that way. Will they win? You decide.

more at:
http://www.alternet.org/democracy/89628/?page=1

[SergeyDovlatov]

1. Shouldn't it be: Offense hawks? nt

[hendo]

2. nope, they are doing it in the name of

"National Defense"

[Land Shark]

3. They do this to weaken america, the only force that can control multinationals....

and multinationals are the new competitors with all nation-states, and naturally don't want their "freedom" disturbed by any regulation, in the public interest or otherwise...