Congress, Obama and War-making

It is extraordinary to realize that Obama's appeal for Congressional support to attack Syria--that's what it is, really--is also one of the first retreats from imperial Presidential powers offered by a sitting President.

But it should awaken us to a fact: this isn't a democracy anymore, any more than Rome's Republic was still a Republic, after Julius Caesar marched on Rome.

The imperial presidency has grown ever since FDR, and growth was only temporarily slowed by former General, President Eisenhower. The last President to really ask for Congressional approval for a foreign adventure was Bush the First. There was a real debate, although the outcome was preordained.

Obama has not grabbed for power, so much as been advised that he has to assert it, since he's President. And, consider what he, or any President, faces: a united front of Defense contractors, Generals, intelligence experts, investors and almost anyone with money. They're almost all of them for war, any war, as long as it's profitable, and any war is hugely profitable, if you're on the right side. No one they know will ever be killed on a battlefield, or blown up by American bombs.

The Roman Empire grew for the same reason: the profits of war. While modern nations don't enslave their captives and sell them on the slave block, or openly pillage conquered cities as Rome did, they use war to win economic control, as the Bush's tried to do in Iraq: capture Iraq's oil wealth through gaining contracts for American corporations to extract the oil.

But the profitability of our last few wars hasn't met expectations. Iraq has been a bust, Afghanistan and Libya also. Is this a sign of a declining empire?

What I see is an authoritarian, elite-corporate-controlled state, in which dissent like mine is simply ignored: dissenters don't have the money to bring lawsuits, or win elections. The corporate controllers are in a position to manufacture public opinion, and, at the same time, to gain almost exclusive access to government officials wielding power. Elected officials are flattered, threatened, and overwhelmed by expensive expertise. They have to do what the powers-that-be want them to do.

In addition, we now have a surveillance state, so no one knows what the State knows about us. However, more are becoming aware that the State could know everything. It was a more primitive version of that power that enabled Stalin to build a totalitarian state under his control.

Obama isn't the Stalin his successor could be; it wouldn't be pretty, since the Empire will continue to retreat, whoever it is. And the military-security-industrial complex will control the power structure.

Unless we can break free of the corporate state, the overwhelming majority of us will be impoverished and virtually enslaved, to feed the hungry imperial maw, even more desperate as war profits dwindle and the world becomes increasingly more difficult to control.

War? Or Peace?

The war authorization passed by Congress after 911 will be necessary, military officials told the US Senate, for 10-20 years, and will enable them to put US military on the ground, from Syria to the Congo to Boston!

"This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today," Sen. Angus King said. [Huffpo 5/21]

On 5/23, Obama said the war on terror was winding down, and with it the utility of the 911 war authorization.

What's going on here?

Since 9/11/2001, there has been a huge growth in the military and related security services. Think of the department always referred to as "sprawling" Homeland Security, which didn't even exist on 9/11. Think of the CIA running covert wars in places most Americans still can't find on a map: the Tribal Agency in Pakistan's Northeast frontier, and in Somalia and Yemen.

Think of all the money those services spend--or waste, or give away. Does anyone really know how many $100's of billions? Wouldn't it be nice if the CIA came calling to your house, instead of to President Karzai's palace, and dropped off anonymous bundles of $20 bills?

We'll probably see a good many more of these conflicting statements, coming out of the White House and the Pentagon--or its related services. There's a lot of money involved: the sequester cuts the military somewhat more deeply than other government programs, but still leaves most of its "Terror" funding intact. Obama's statement puts many security programs in the cross-hairs of budget cutters.

There are a lot of peoples' jobs at stake; even more important, from a monetary point of view, there are billions of dollars in military and security contracts on the line.

It doesn't matter whether these programs are necessary: covert action sections, new weapons, highly trained employees. That isn't the point of the disagreement reflected in the statements of "military officials" versus President Obama.

Obama has declared war and his opponents were fighting back--they knew which way the wind was blowing before the President's statement. The Military-Security-Industrial complex isn't going to let a good thing be taken away. The MSI will martial its forces to ensure that what it has won, first with GW and then with Obama, won't be cut.

Of course, the "military officials" implied their programs should be expanded, not curtailed: they want to fight all over the globe, even in Boston.

If the MSI prevails, we'll continue to flex our muscles globally, while hollowing out the nation internally: a sure recipe for following the Roman Empire into oblivion.

Considering the miniscule number of deaths caused by Terrorism, and the huge numbers caused by out-of-control-capitalism, I'd happily defund "Defense," to adequately budget needed social programs. Hope for Obama's new vision. It's the best chance we've got.