Lionizing US Military Personnel

I do not know much about Caitlin Johnstone, although I suspect that anyone who describes herself as a "rogue journalist" is a bit self-promoting. Nonetheless, I agree with her recent article that there are no war heroes, only victims. American service personnel are victims of the profit seeking "military industrial complex."

She wrote:

The defense industry can not increase its profits unless it increases conflict. Thus, the US military continues to increase its reach around the globe, all for the alleged sake of our safety, security, and defense of our (and other's) freedoms. Look at this map of US military bases worldwide, of varying size:

Source

This is bunk. The US Department of Defense is creating enemies to fight, putting American service personnel in increasing danger, using them as pawns of a social fiction ("American heroes") to keep greasing the gear works of the US war machine.

Johnstone is correct: "We need to talk about this...The correct response to news of a US serviceman or woman dying in combat is not gratitude and patriotism. The correct response is rage at the people who put them in harm’s way. The longer we continue pretending that their deaths are a glorious, noble sacrifice and not an unforgivable outrage, the longer those flag-draped coffins will keep flying home."

My heart goes to US service personnel. Many serve in the military motivated by a sincere sense of duty. Bravo for them. My criticism is not toward the men and women in uniform, but the Defense Department that increasingly puts these folks in harms way, not to defend American freedoms, but to create enemies that the US must increasingly "defend" itself from. And, of course, this requires weapons. 

Throw in the "threats" of Russia and China, then the defense industry justifies expansive and costly ventures into new technologies --- technologies that are rationalized as being crucial for maintaining American freedoms. 

Perhaps we need to rename the US Defense Department, as "defense" is only nominal. 

No, I'm not anti-American. I'm very proud to be an American. The very fact that I have to state this demonstrates how too many Americans conflate support for the military industrial complex (although they'll view it as support for American military personnel) with being a good American -- a true patriot. 

I'm old enough to remember how Americans who protested the Vietnam War were considered traitors and radicals. But there are few today who, in hindsight, would support this excursion into Vietnam. Today, there are many "Vietnams" being fought under the same banner of insuring American freedoms and liberties and defending democracy around the world. We defend the US by attacking other nations. 

Strange. 

Using History As A Template

There are lessons to learn from history. In fact, I think that a study of history should guide a nation's foreign policy. A new foreign policy idea: a staff historian! Would President Bush have ordered the US invasion of Afghanistan if he had first consulted an historian or two? Possibly not. It is for not for no reason that Afghanistan is called the "graveyard of empires." And the US, after 17 years fighting in that desperate place, is proving this axiom true.

One of my favorite bloggers is Mish Shedlock. Mish writes about economic issues at Mish Talk: Global Economic Trend Analysis. The man is one of the most popular authors on economics on the Internet, and he knows his stuff. His latest post caught my eye.

Is he correct in his observation? Only time will tell, but the reality is that he (actually, Chris Martenson) is observing the increasing polarization of national and ethnic power bases in Europe, again, and this could very well lead to conflict. Not soon, perhaps, but in time.

As Mark Twain reputedly said, "history may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes." Why is this? I think that it is because human beings really never change. History is a record of the same human behaviors again and again. That is why military cadets still study the writings of the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (died 486 BC) in military colleges, and, elsewhere, the teachings of Socrates (died 399 BC) continue to resonate and are still studied. The past still speaks to the present, because humans are still the same. Technology changes, but homo sapiens do not. 

I hope Mish is wrong. But if he's correct, it's not like we should be surprised. And even if war does not break out, we are still seeing an older version of Europe reasserting itself.

The Oft-Charade Of Science

What is often passed as science is not truly science. Indeed, what is often times presented as science is simply a caricature, a charade, of science. Or an outright lie. According to Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet in an opinion piece that was simultaneously published in both the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine --- the two leading medical journals in the English-speaking world, if not in the entire world --- stated: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." (link)



Echoing these words, Dr. Marcia Angell --- editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine -- stated: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine." (link)

In fact, this problem of the lack of reproducibility of published experiments and data in peer-reviewed science journals might be even worse than suggested by Drs. Horton and Angell. According to an article published in the online medical journal PLOS/Medicine the vast majority of published science is simple "false." (link)

How can this be? How has science become so compromised? Because science has become a commodity, to be packaged and sold to an audience. There is money to be made, and science is marketed to achieve that end. True or not, science sells. 

Science is powerful. It has gotten us to the moon and back, it has extended the lifespan of the average human being to historical highs, and has unlocked the secrets of the atom. It has also allowed us to pollute our planet at levels that seem improbable (link) and created the ability --- a present reality! --- to exterminate all life on the planet, i.e., nuclear weapons. But science is also consummately human. We have "bad" science, because we are, simply put, "bad." We should expect the above observations to be normal, not exceptions. Contrary to what we are often taught in school and of which forms a foundational paradigm for our collective humanistic approach to reality, human beings are not intrinsically good. Collectively and individually we are fallen. As it reads in the New Testament book of Romans: 

(more references)

As the British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge observed, "The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact." I could not have stated it better, and this helps us to explain all of the points written above.  Parenthood teaches us this. I never had to teach my children to hit, to be selfish, to not share, and to bully. I had to teach them to not use violence, to not be selfish, to share, and to be empathetic and kind. 

Where does this leave us? We're hopeless, except for Jesus. Thank God for Jesus!