January 28, 2007
From the WaPo:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned that a proposed Senate resolution criticizing the deployment of additional troops would embolden the enemy. "Any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon. "I'm sure that that's not the intent behind the resolutions, but I think it may be the effect."
From Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the Political:
A people which exists in the sphere of the political cannot in case of need renounce the right to determine by itself the friend and enemy distinction. ... The solemn declaration of outlawing war does not abolish the friend-enemy distinction, but, on the contrary, opens new possibilities by giving an international hostis declaration new content and vigour.
Were this distinction to vanish then political life would vanish altogether. A people who exists in the political sphere cannot, despite entreating declarations to the contrary, escape from making this fateful distinction. If a part of the population declares that it no longer recognizes enemies, then, depending on the circumstance, it joins their side and aids them.
The last sentence is arguing similarly to Gates, those that do not recognize the enemy, and the imperative to unify against the enemy, are ultimately traitors. Liberalism seeks positive outcomes through equality, so hard antagonistic lines are replaced with debate and competition, not violence. In Schmitt's philosophy, those that advocate liberalism become traitors to the 'political'.
It is interesting to see Schmitt and Agamben's different definition of political. To Schmitt the political is the final, singular and absolute arena of authority. Law does not come into it. Agamben defines political action in State of Exception as:
The only truly political action, however, is that which severs the nexus between violence and law.
Schmitt has extended the Hobbesian all against all to be many against few in the friend-enemy distinction. But that is not true, it is the appearance of friend-enemy, as the friend and enemy is defined by the executive, especially in a state of exception. Consequently Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction, rather than being many against few, is really few against few where the first few is the executive, and the latter few is those that have been given the appearance of law but suffer at executive whim.
I still cannot disconnect the state of exception from executive tyranny. The exception exists as a political arena where there is the appearance of law but due to the executive adopting executive, legislative and judicial powers outside of the reach of constitutionalism, there is, as Agamben argues, no force of law. The executive chooses not to enforce the law, and the other branches are either willingly surrendered their responsibilities, or cannot reach into that area by constitutional restrictions.
This is executive tyranny. Tyranny does not have to be absolute to be destructive. It can be insidious such as in arbitrary government, or in the case of a state of exception, it can exist despite the restrictions on government action by a constitution.
So how to redress it?
One: Any individual under the jurisdiction of the government must be able to sue that government through the judicial for their full political rights. This means constitutions, and consequently the branches of government, must define the citizen as an individual under the jurisdiction of the government. No longer must citizen be defined by accidents of birth, or swearing to the tribe. Full political rights must be extended to any individual under the jurisdiction of any branch of government. This is completely consistent with liberalism and republicanism.
Two: There must be no action of the executive which is outside of legislative or judicial scrutiny. Australia is always going to suffer in this area as the political technologies it has chosen for government are not republican. The federal and state governments combine their executive and legislative into the one parliamentary body. Australia does also not have a history of rigourous political rights - our history has been full of government overreach and arbitrary action against the politically and electorally weak.
|
The Department of Defense, headquartered in the Pentagon, is one of the most massive organizations on the planet, with net annual operating costs of $635 billion, assets worth $1.3 trillion, liabilities of $1.9 trillion and more that 2.9 million military and civilian personnel as of fiscal year 2005.
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
It is difficult to convey the complexity of the way DOD works to someone who has not experienced it. This is a massive machine with so many departments and so much beaurocracy that no president, including Bush totally understands it.
Presidents, Congressmen, Cabinet Members and Appointees project a knowledgeable demeanor but they are spouting what they are told by career people who never go away and who train their replacements carefully. These are military and civil servants with enormous collective power, armed with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Defense Industrial Security Manuals, compartmentalized classification structures and "Rice Bowls" which are never mixed.
Our society has slowly given this power structure its momentum which is constant and extraordinarily tough to bend. The cost to the average American is exhorbitant in terms of real dollars and bad decisions. Every major power structure member in the Pentagon's many Washington Offices and Field locations in the US and Overseas has a counterpart in Defense Industry Corporate America. That collective body has undergone major consolidation in the last 10 years.
What used to be a broad base of competitive firms is now a few huge monoliths, such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Boeing.
Government oversight committees are carefully stroked. Sam Nunn and others who were around for years in military and policy oversight roles have been cajoled, given into on occasion but kept in the dark about the real status of things until it is too late to do anything but what the establishment wants. This still continues - with increasing high technology and potential for abuse.
Please examine the following link to testimony given by Franklin C. Spinney before Congress in 2002. It provides very specific information from a whistle blower who is still blowing his whistle (Look him up in your browser and you get lots of feedback) Frank spent the same amount of time as I did in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) but in government quarters. His job in government was a similar role to mine in defense companies. Frank's emphasis in this testimony is on the money the machine costs us. It is compelling and it is noteworthy that he was still a staff analyst at the Pentagon when he gave this speech. I still can't figure out how he got his superior's permission to say such blunt things. He was extremely highly respected and is now retired.
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/spinney_testimony_060402.htm
The brick wall I often refer to is the Pentagon's own arrogance. It will implode by it's own volition, go broke, or so drastically let down the American people that it will fall in shambles. Rest assured the day of the implosion is coming. The machine is out of control.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting on this blog entitled, "Odyssey of Armaments"
http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/odyssey-of-armaments.html
On the same subject, you may also be interested in the following sites from the "Project On Government Oversight", observing it's 25th Anniversary and "Defense In the National Interest", insired by Franklin Spinney and contributed to by active/reserve, former, or retired military personnel.
http://pogo.org/
http://www.d-n-i.net/top_level/about_us.htm