The US and Perpetual War- A critique of John D. Rachel's eponymous book

The US and Perpetual War-

A critique of John D. Rachel's eponymous book

Monish R Chatterjee - 2024

The author, poet and essayist John D Rachel (JDR), whose political philosophy and leanings remind me a little of Rob Kall, Founder of OpEdNews, published a compilation of critical and insightful responses from a distinguished panel of political thinkers and public figures under the title The US and Perpetual War (Literary Vagabond, ASIN B0C5CCL854, ISBN-13 9781312561571) in May, 2023 .

This reviewer befriended JDR via both OpEdNews and also social media (where he periodically chronicles his activities in Japan, when he is not writing or even composing sometimes) several years ago. Over time, I have become highly appreciative of his humanist, antiwar and genuinely progressive views and consistent consciousness-raising which befit any campaigner for social change.

The idea behind this compilation is structurally framed as a Q&A interchange with political thinkers and activists, leading to highly incisive responses to diverse geopolitical issues with serious implications relative to war, genocide, imperial hubris and plunder, and ultimately, issues regarding the very survival of humanity in the not-too-distant future.

The list of JDR's 22 targeted interrogatees is a virtual Who's Who of contemporary political thinkers and public figures. Not surprisingly, at the front end we have Noam Chomsky, (thankfully still with us, now recovering in Brazil), and from there the list goes on to include a fairly diverse group including Paul Craig Roberts, Norman Solomon, Margaret Kimberley, Scott Ritter and Dennis Kucinich. Given that this reviewer has in the past 20+ years navigated this domain rather vigorously, and also written about, or corresponded with, some of the related luminaries, I am a little curious to know if JDR considered including these other luminaries and peace campaigners in putting his compilation together (perhaps that might be part of a follow-up volume): relentless peace activists David Swanson and Debra Sweet; leading nuclear-disarmament campaigner Helen Caldicott; defiant and courageous critic of the continuing expansionism and occupation of Palestine by Israel, Norman Finkelstein; compelling political commentators Andre Vltchek and John Pilger (sadly both now departed), also veteran commentator/author Tariq Ali; CodePink Founder and relentless antiwar activist Medea Benjamin, the Indian campaigner against imperialism Arundhati Roy, and others.

It must be noted that the respondents in this compilation are not all in the liberal or progressive fold, even though the majority are. The questions in the compilation cover fifteen areas of interest regarding US imperial ambitions, its numerous genocidal wars, its exceptionalist doctrine, and most significantly, the issue of nuclear proliferation. In order to keep this review relatively concise, I will offer comments on Q1-4 from Part I (which is titled Prospects for Peace in JDR's book), and Q11-12 from Part II (titled US Foreign Policy in the book).

Of the 22 interrogatees, I will comment on the assessments by the following (with initials as specified): Noam Chomsky (NM), Paul Craig Roberts (PCR), Ajamu Baraka (AB), Larry Wilkerson (LW), Abby Martin (AM), Dan Kovalik (DKo), Margaret Kimberley (MK), Scott Ritter (SR), Dennis Kucinich (DKu).

On Part I: Prospects for Peace

Q1. Doomsday Clock set at 90 minutes to midnight in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Do you agree?

A1: On this NC posits that the assessment is fair, and that under Donald Trump's handling of relations with Russia and China, the clock has moved closer (NC cites a link from Aljazeera). LW maintains that indeed talks of nuclear non-proliferation have virtually collapsed. To make matters worse, important de-escalation treaties such as ABM and INF have been discarded. Worse yet- Russia is apparently also considering limited nuclear use with "tactical nukes." PCR agrees that the US has, and continues to provoke Russia; PCR also quotes John Pilger's warning about the higher likelihood of a US-China nuclear showdown. AM also affirms the doomsday clock prediction, implicating the role of political think tanks whose recommendations actually strengthen militarism, thereby hastening a nuclear winter and the end of the human race. DKo believes the dismantling of the Soviet Union has accelerated the risk of nuclear war. Interestingly, in several of his responses (see SR's other responses) SR disagrees with the doomsday prediction. While SR stresses that forward deployed nuclear weapons have been reduced (and as a former UN WMD inspector, he should know), he believes that the clock should be set at 1 second to midnight until all nuclear weapons are eliminated. Therefore, on balance, while all the responses are definitely understandably pessimistic, it may be concluded that SR is in fact more pessimistic than the rest.

Q2. While the US considers itself to be a force for peace, justice, human rights and other virtues, other nations think it is the greatest threat to global stability. Which of these is true?

A2. NC agrees with the US being the greatest threat to world. In his view, this can be tied to the longstanding Euro/American colonial belief that the Western colonists are a superior force for good. NC cites John Stewart Mill who declared the UK as an "angelic power", no matter its numerous crimes in India and elsewhere. This notion has continued to morph into the Western (and especially American) notion of Exceptionalism, even as propagators of imperial oppression and violence. LW describes the US as a military behemoth (side-stepping serious domestic issues) undermining peace and stability. PCR recalls the Bush-era Wolfowitz doctrine (echoes of Mill's angelic imperialism) which advocates absolute US hegemony (which is full-spectrum dominance)- hence guarantees global instability in response. DKo quotes two prominent Americans who delineated US stance vis---vis peace: MLK's famous proclamation that "The US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world," and Jimmy Carter's more recent statement that "The US is the most war-like country in world history". Further, DKo declares that with 800 military bases around the world, the US is waging war (direct, proxy, Special Forces and private contractors) in 80 countries around the world at any given time. Also, characteristically in divergence from the other respondents, SR declares that there is no "Utopian notion of Universality", and that "no nation lives up to its ideals". According to SR, the US is not a paragon of virtue, but then no nation is. To this reviewer, the problem with this generalization and minimization of US threats to world peace (which in this reviewer's judgment, unfortunately projects SR as an (albeit passive) apologist for Empire) is that while SR may be technically correct about no nation being a paragon of virtue or their incapacity to live up to their ideals- a military behemoth such as the US can inflict severe damage (and routinely does) to fellow nations with similar failings. Being a bull in a china shop requires considerably greater care in every move.

Q3. Do Russia and China have imperial ambitions, or are they responding to US aggression?

A3. For comparison purposes, NC lays out the top military budgets of nations in the world (as of 2020). The US's $778 billion literally dwarfs those of China ($252b), India (#3) and Russia (#4, $61.7b). And most ironically, the US faces by far the least security threats, and yet pursues violence without limits. LW maintains that of China and Russia, the former is economically (and socially) more powerful, and both are capable of responding to US aggression. DKu draws a very pertinent contrast between the "ambitions" of these players. According to DKu, China and Russia pursue power and prestige (as does the US), but typically do so via developmental and infrastructure assistance, and not by "dropping bombs on other countries", as the US does. It is a bit of an oddity that SR, who most admirably exonerated Iraq from the dishonest Bush regime accusation that it was developing WMDs prior to the 2003 invasion, continues his broad-brush approach to downplay US aggression by declaring that "the US did not invent the war of aggression." Once again- this begs for the bull in the china shop analogy for a military behemoth running roughshod over the world.

Q4. While experts say the US is the most powerful empire in history, does it need to be an empire in order to be successful and protect its citizenry?

A4. On this, LW declares that the US is definitely an empire, albeit badly led and poorly managed. PCR, while agreeing, adds that "ultimately empires destroy their own people." Thus, the US Empire's war on terror is effectively against the American people. Coleen Rowley (not cited elsewhere) issues the warning that humanity must "end American Empire before it ends us." All sage words which demand attention and action. DKo agrees the US is the greatest Empire in history, but at great expense and serious damage to itself. He bemoans the reality that the "American Republic has fallen to the Empire". This speaks to the realization of Eisenhower's warning regarding the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). On the subject of Empire, SR agrees, but mentions how maintaining the Empire requires acquiring and exploiting external resources.

On Part II: US Foreign Policy

Q11. Who (and what factors) define US Foreign Policy?

A11. A long time ago, NC points out, the leading Western political thinker Adam Smith justified (Euro-American) modern state capitalism with the proclamation that the merchants and manufacturers of England are "Masters of Mankind." Even though Adam Smith may be considered a highly regarded economic and political thinker, it is a proclamation of this type (coming from someone prominent) which unfortunately reinforces the bigotry of the superior and Master Race. NC proclaims that Adam Smith's "Masters" are the principal architects of government policy, "no matter the grievous effects and impacts". Hence the unlimited and destructive seeking and utilization of fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals for medical care (or the lack thereof), and other environmentally and economically devastating industries. LW brings us closer to the current context of the nihilist cult citing the former Republican congressional staffer Michael Lofgren (credited with coining the (widely used on both sides of the political spectrum) concept of the Deep State), who left the Republican cult, declaring "both parties are rotten captives to the corporate loot." Lofgren bemoans especially that the Donald J Trump cult cast more than 70 million votes in 2020, and does not appear to have abated. PCR confesses not to have a "full" answer. He reminds the interrogator (JDR) of Eisenhower's MIC warning, and especially stresses that such corrupt electioneering policies as the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision (lifting limits on the amount of corporate donations into the US elections pool) has further strengthened MIC. On balance, such policies are ultimately driven by US "exceptionalism". DKo echoes PCR regarding the influence of MIC on US foreign policy, stressing that the US is definitely not "democratic" in this regard, and that the "capitalist class rules." SR broadly agrees on the unelected, non-democratic version of US foreign policy, emphasizing the role of the Deep State- a cabal of policy specialist with completely unstructured ideas which SR calls "the blob". NS ridicules the labeling of military spending as "defense"; he calls it a bad start. The military-based imperialism of the US foreign policy is best exemplified by its more than 750 bases and operations in 80 countries. NS defines this entity as "corporate" or "warfare" state. AB identifies the US foreign policy as entirely controlled by the capitalist economic elite. The Congress or the US President do not control or define US foreign policy. MK (who is a prominent commentator at the influential online site Black Agenda Report) identifies the US as an oligarchy, entirely controlled by the MIC; hence, instead of Medicare for All, there is endless war and unrelenting war-funding. DKu summarily defines US foreign policy and geopolitics as imperial, calling the entity a "for-profit" business.

Q12. Is the US destined to be an aggressor nation forever?

A12: According to NC, the US has been at war since its founding. During World War I, the antiwar author and activist Randolph Bourne described the value of war in defining foreign policy by the statement "war measures the health of the state." This would imply that a state not at war by this definition is not healthy (probably in the MIC sense). In a survey on the nations which are the greatest threat to peace conducted by Gallup, NC mentions that the US finished at the top by a wide margin, with (rather oddly) Pakistan a distant second. Note there was neither Russia nor China anywhere near the US. LW posits that "Empires can never be at peace"- thereby affirming the status of the US as a permanent aggressor. PCR emphasizes the Bush-era declaration of US hegemony (which echoes the Wolfowitz philosophy of full-spectrum dominance, a part of the Project for the New American Century, PNAC)- which guarantees that war is inevitable, with Russia, China (and possibly Iran) being perpetually instigated. DKo is cynical regarding even the necessity of US wars. "Every war is a war of choice," he states, and emphatically underscores the truth that the US has never had any real national security threat, or any territorial invasion. Hence, its perpetual war machine operates by choice and design. AB reiterates this view by noting that the US in its foreign policy is "endlessly looking for enemies" (in this reviewer's opinion, the enemy of the US is rather often manufactured out of whole cloth). DKu states that US wars of intervention (presented to the world as humanitarian actions) are almost always entirely unrelated to the concerns of the "host" country. Once again, they are a product of design and choice.

*********

This book (with content considerably more than anything discussed here) makes a valuable addition to the vital conversation on the grim reality of perpetual war, and the convoluted yet undeniable role played by the US in pursuing this aggressive exercise to the detriment of humanity and civilization. This doomsday picture is made considerably more lethal by the very existence of, and undeterred proliferation of nuclear weapons. With the dangerous far-right shift of politics in the US since Ronald Reagan (culminating in the worst of that model, Donald Trump, since 2016), the matter of the doomsday clock has to be placed persistently before Americans and humanity as a whole as a reminder that inaction is simply not an option.

This reviewer (MRC) would like to suggest that JDR might consider extending this conversation to a potential trilogy, which would make this project even more valuable and archival. A component noticeably missing in this conversation (though quite understandable) is the absence of any solutions for defusing the dual problems of Empire and perpetual war (Gore Vidal likely offered some thoughts on this in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, but those too were primarily from the perspective of a skeptic). This is an almost impossible challenge- but the solutions have to come from the committed and dedicated thinkers who have served as the respondents here. I would suggest adding some of the other potential antiwar campaigners mentioned earlier in this review. A third part of the trilogy could likely draw upon the antiwar campaigners' knowledge and tracking experience in order to lay down the current state of actual action on the ground in the effort to reduce (and eventually eliminate) nuclear weapons and their proliferation (and other WMDs), and in promoting peaceful coexistence among nations and people (which is inextricably related to the earth's life-sustaining environment) for the very survival of humanity.

(Article changed on Aug 15, 2024 at 12:32 PM EDT)

(Article changed on Aug 15, 2024 at 12:39 PM EDT)