Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Happy Birthday, America!
I'm still on vacation out west, and I haven't seen a New York Times in nearly a week. In fact, I even spent three days in the Sierra Nevada mountains away from all cell phone and internet access, and my sense of withdrawal was palpable. I'll assume that nothing too significant happened, but I'm not going comment on current events until I have a chance to catch up.
Instead, I thought I'd offer two brief suggestions for your reading lists. To commemorate the Fourth of July, make sure you actually sit down and read the Declaration of Independence. (The Times usefully prints a copy on the 4th, but if you're reading this, you can also find it online here). And then ask yourself whether you think the United States is still living up to those ideals in its dealings with other countries. Are we the heirs of Thomas Jefferson, or the descendants of King George III?
The second suggestion is the book I'm reading on vacation: Piers Brendon's
The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997. It's a terrific read -- both entertaining and informative -- and I'm learning a lot from it. I'll have more to say when I'm finished, but so far it's been fascinating.
Of course, lots of patriotic speeches will be made on the 4th, and particular attention will be devoted to our armed forces. I'm frankly in awe of the sacrifices that many of them have made in recent years, along with their families. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and reservists who have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve our thanks and respect, even if the missions they were assigned by their political leaders were misguided.
But let's not forget that the United States was founded by dissenters -- indeed, by revolutionaries -- and that someone who challenges the reigning orthodoxy can be just as patriotic as someone who faithfully executes whatever the current policy might be. Indeed, sometimes those who dissent turn out to be right, and the country would have been better off had it listened to them earlier. Free speech and vigorous debate are the hallmarks of a truly open society, and so I'm going to spend a little time tomorrow thinking about the rebels who challenged the conventional wisdom -- sometimes at great personal cost. Our pantheon of heroes should have room for them as well, and it would be nice of some of our current politicians honored them too.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
Founding fathers and military adventurism abroad
Declaration of Independence is a good start. America's system of government was tailored to domestic politics: checks and balances from representatives responsible to states. It is ill-suited to foreign adventurism, especially when much of foreign policy is held hostage to corporate/foreign/defense lobbying interests.
Here is what the Founding Fathers had to say:
James Madison:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Virginian Patrick Henry:
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?
When the Commonwealth of Virginia ratified the Constitution in 1788, its concern over standing armies mirrored that of Patrick Henry:
... that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Virginia’s concern was expressed by North Carolina, which stated in its Declaration of Rights in 1776,
that the people have a Right to bear Arms for the Defence of the State, and as Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.
The Pennsylvania Convention repeated that principle:
... as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.
Lastly Madison again:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
bravo!
well said and quoted. especially the point that the current political structure was tailor made for domestic consumption. so here comes the question, shouldn't the Constitution be revamped to suite the globalized today? as one would think a fundamental flaw deserves a fundamental fix?
... the current political
... the current political structure was tailor made for domestic consumption. so here comes the question, shouldn't the Constitution be revamped to suite the globalized today?
What he said was:
Are you suggesting that we should change the Constitution to make it better suited to foreign adventurism and to holding foreign policy hostage to corporate/foreign/defense lobbying?
WTF?
why assume the obvious?
he said,
some people love to think his opponents are so obviously wrong.
why assume the obvious?
Because if you assume anything, the obvious is the obvious thing to assume?
Why should we respect people
Why should we respect people who checked in their brains at the recruiting station? Why should we respect people who travel half-way around the world to attack people who have done nothing to us? The whole point about celebrating Independence Day is to celebrate the spirit of rebellion: Hell No! We won't bend over for King George (or George Bush, for that matter!) This politically-correct support- the-troops mentality is what gets us into one stupid war after another, to great cost both in terms of money and lives. The only people who deserve our respect are those who act in an honorable fashion; in my opinion killing Iraqi and Afghan civilians who did nothing to us and destroying their countries is not an honorable act. Those in the armed forces who went along with these mass killings because they lacked the courage to face a court marshal will have to face a higher authority one day but today, they will receive nothing but contempt from me.
This politically-correct
I disagree, I think it is blind patriotism, with out question of what it means to be patriotic.
My guess from the is that you think the troops had great support during Vietnam. I am not sure that is precisely true. I think that they had support blindly from a segment of the population, but was severely opposed by others. That certainly got us out of Vietnam.
Today, I am not sure we have shown the same 'disrespect' or opposition to the soldiers themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan in the process to resisting these wars. Yet, we held the elected official that sent our military to war accountable, not the military it self. And, we are starting to see draw downs in one of the major regions.
Militaries in nations like ours are a tool of the political body. If individual soldiers question every order, the military would not be able to execute its function. Sometimes it means knowingly order 50 men up a hill to secure it, knowing full well 30 of them are going to die in the process. If everyone questions their orders at that point, it will like mean many more deaths.
I think too this assumes some wars are moral and others are not. Personally I think a more compelling questions for me is, "why is war ever moral"?
Equally, what happens when the military becomes independent of taking orders from the political arm? When it, as an unelected body becomes responsible for the political agenda and aims of the society. Well, I would rather not live in a society like that here, Lord knows I lived in enough military junta run nations before. I prefer the political arm make decision, be responsible for those decisions, and be held accountable for them as well and the military remains a tool.
neither are correct, politically or otherwise
neither of you are correct, politically or otherwise. the different attitude ref Vietnam and Iraq towards an erring and misled military has nothing to do with politics or political atmosphere, as the two armies are of totally different nature--one a drafted citizen army, the other an army of voluntary professionals (pc speaking)/ mercenaries (more accurate less pc).
therefore today's citizens are rather disengaged. the soldiers who hired themselves out have only their professionalism to recommend themselves. the former deserve the latter as they no longer think this country deserve their blood. of course the latter is way more convenient to all sorts of interest-lobby groups.
This particular line: we
This particular line:
always sends chills down my spine when I read it, and it did so now.
bravo!
well said and quoted. especially the point that the current political structure was tailor made for domestic consumption. so here comes the question, shouldn't the Constitution be revamped to suite the globalized today? as one would think a fundamental flaw deserves a fundamental fix?
(sorry this post is meant for the clint's comment top of the column)
I think no major changes are
I think no major changes are needed but:
1.
_paid_ lobbying needs to be abolished.
2. campaign finance and campaign marketing (TV) rules need to be revamped to bring them under strict control and to <1% of current budgets.
3. Third (and 4th and 5th...) party candidates need to be able to have a voice.
4. Bring back the draft -- will reduce wars for obvious reasons.
5. Swap state dept. and defense dept budgets.
Biggest problem is #1 -- If you'd like to express your opinion to your rep. do so without money.
restrictive meatures never work
we the people had collectively and voluntarily put a brainless imbecile into the highest office two times in a row, causing two needless wars, resulting in thousands of lives wasted and minimally a year of complete government budget down the drain. AND have barely escaped replacing him with a worse delusional loony. don't think something scarier than money mispent in the millions is happening?
Blunt Honesty
To be honest, I consider it to be one of the better events of the 18th century, but when I read about the actual reasons for the revolution (which the Declaration does not do so well in mentioning)I don't think that it was fought for very good reasons. There were a large number of mistakes made on both sides, but if the leaders on both sides had been different I don't think it unreasonable to assume that there would have been a restoration of the old system.
As for whether we are heirs, I would argue that we are closer to Jefferson than to George III but that we have moved considerably away from both. Remember that Jefferson was an enemy of industry and favored an agrarian policy, and that he also felt that having an army or a navy would be a threat to liberty. We should remember both Jefferson and George, but only take from them ideas which can work.
Why we fight
Why we fight:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682
Also founded by smmuglers...
Do not forget that the guy who signed the Declaration was, John Hancock, a known smmugler. Actually, colonial leaders were pretty happy to be part of the Brittish Empire until London started to enforce their trade legislation on smmuglers.
The Preambule of the Constitution would be different
Well, you can only declare independence once, but if Constitution is to be written again on realistic terms, it would say something like this on its preamble:
"WE THE CORPORATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PROFITABLE UNION, ESTABLISH BUSINESS, INSURE DOMESTIC MONOPOLY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON LOBBYING, PROMOTE OUR WELFARE, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR SHAREHOLDERS, DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF THE WORLD."