Theresa May and Donald Trump. Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire/PA Images. All rights reserved.Donald Trump's election has elicited
impassioned affirmations of a renewed commitment to unvarnished truth-telling
from the prestige media. The common theme: you know you can’t trust him,
but trust us to keep dogging him on your behalf. The New York
Times has even unveiled a portentous new promotional slogan: “The truth is now more important than ever.” For its
part, the Washington Post grimly warns that “democracy dies in darkness,” and is offering
itself as a source of illumination now that the rotund figure of the 45th
president has produced the political equivalent of a total eclipse of the sun.
Meanwhile, National Public Radio fundraising campaigns are sounding an
increasingly panicky note: give, listener, lest you be personally responsible
for the demise of the Republic that we are bravely fighting to save from
extinction.
If only it were so. How wonderful
it would be if President Trump’s ascendancy had coincided with a revival of
hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that’s
hardly the case. True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy
and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical
standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already emerging as
Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again)
uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned
some position to which he had previously sworn fealty requires something less
than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes. As for beating up on poor
Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes – well, that’s more akin to
sadism than reporting.
Apart from a commendable determination
to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select military figures
excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior
to November 8 of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads
and novelties discovered, celebrated, then mocked; “extraordinary” stories of
ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only to once again be consigned to
oblivion – all served with a side dish of that day’s quota of suffering,
devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism’s stock-in-trade. As
practiced in the United States, with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable)
exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic, and governed by the
attention span of a two year old.
As a result, all those editors,
reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their labors as “now
more important than ever” ill-serve the public they profess to inform and
enlighten. Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further. If
anything, the media’s current obsession with Donald Trump – his every utterance
or tweet treated as “breaking news!” – just provides one additional excuse for
highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention
than they currently receive.
Missing in action
To illustrate the point, let me cite
some examples of national security issues that presently receive short shrift
or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set
the nation’s political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are
two dozen matters to which you’re not giving faintly adequate thought and
attention.
1. Accomplishing the “mission”:
Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States has been
committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long
thereafter, US security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as
well. Under what circumstances can Americans expect nations in these
regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put
it another way, when (if ever) might US forces actually come home? And if
it is incumbent upon the United States to police vast swaths of the planet in
perpetuity, how should momentous changes in the international order – the rise
of China, for example, or accelerating climate change – affect the US approach
to doing so? To put it another way, when (if ever)
might US forces actually come home?
2. American military supremacy:
The United States military is undoubtedly the world’s finest. It’s also
far and away the most generously
funded, with policymakers offering US troops
no shortage of opportunities to practice their craft. So why doesn’t this
great military ever win anything? Or put another way, why in recent
decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington’s stated wartime
objectives? Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in
even a single real success anywhere in the Greater Middle East? Could it
be that we’ve taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing
differently?
3. America’s empire of bases: The
US military today garrisons the
planet in a fashion without historical
precedent. Successive administrations, regardless of party, justify and
perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning US forces in distant lands
fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however,
perpetuating this practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the
eyes of many of those called upon to “host” American bases, the permanent
presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should
US policymakers expect otherwise?
4. Supporting the troops: In
present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve in uniform is
something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to cherish America’s “warriors.” Yet such bountiful, if
superficial, expressions of regard camouflage a growing gap between those who serve and those who
applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system, based on the
misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has
discussion and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the
nation’s political priorities?
5. Prerogatives of the
commander-in-chief: Are there any military actions that the president of
the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are
they? Bit by bit, decade by decade, Congress has abdicated its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it
merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to do (or simply stays mum). Who does this deference to an imperial
presidency benefit? Have US policies thereby become more prudent,
enlightened, and successful? Who does
this deference to an imperial presidency benefit?
6. Assassin-in-chief: A policy of
assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis of the CIA during the early
Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were
revealed, however, the US government suffered considerable
embarrassment, so much so that
presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however,
Washington returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global
scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence of names on
the current presidential hit list, euphemistically known as the White House
“disposition matrix.” But does assassination actually advance US interests (or
does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)?
How can we measure its costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers
and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?
7. The war formerly known as the
“Global War on Terrorism”: What precisely is Washington’s present strategy
for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps
is expected to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the
case? How is it that the absence of strategy – not to mention an agreed
upon definition of “success” – doesn’t even qualify for discussion here?
8. The campaign formerly known as
Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred to as the
Afghanistan War is now the longest in US history – having lasted longer than the Civil
War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon’s plan for
concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On
what terms?
9. The Gulf: Americans once
believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured
access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The
United States is once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural
gas in North America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still
qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?
10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist
attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents, drug
overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in the allocation of government resources,
preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the
others combined. Why is that?
11. Deaths that matter and deaths
that don’t: Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of Europeans
command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill
far larger numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France
or Belgium elicits from the United States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and
solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits
shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the
answer to that question? A
terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the
difference?
12. Israeli nukes: What purpose
is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
13. Peace in the Holy Land: What
purpose is served by indulging
illusions that a “two-state solution” offers a
plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? As remorselessly as
white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American
tribes, Israeli settlers expand their presence in the occupied territories year by
year. As they do, the likelihood of creating a viable Palestinian state
becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent of
thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David
to the glitz of Mar-a-Lago.
14. Merchandizing death: When it
comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America Great Again. The US
ranks number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies Saudi Arabia and Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the
Saudis (per capita gross domestic product $20,000) purchase hundreds of millions
of dollars of US weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic product
$38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy
of the American taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for US arms, why shouldn’t the
Israelis? They can certainly afford to do so.
15. Our friends the Saudis (I):
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does
that fact signify?
16. Our friends the Saudis (II):
If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand
in the Persian Gulf, why should the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In
what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American values than do
Iranian ones?
17. Our friends the Pakistanis:
Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear
weapons proliferator. It supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to
Osama bin Laden. Yet US policymakers treat Pakistan as if it were an ally.
Why? In what ways do US and Pakistani interests or values coincide? If
there are none, why not say so?
18. Free-loading Europeans: Why
can’t Europe, “whole and
free,” its population and economy considerably larger than Russia’s, defend itself? It’s
altogether commendable that US policymakers should express support for Polish
independence and root for the Baltic republics. But how does it make sense for
the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in Eastern
Europe than do people living in Western Europe?
19. The mother of all “special
relationships”: The United States and the United Kingdom have a “special
relationship” dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston
Churchill. Apart from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied
with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric detectives, what is the
rationale for that partnership today? Why should US relations with Great
Britain, a fading power, be any more “special” than its relations with a rising
power like India? Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be
any more intimate than those connecting Americans and Mexicans? Why does a
republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence still need a
“mother country”? Why should the bonds
connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting
Americans and Mexicans?
20. The old nuclear disarmament
razzmatazz: American presidents routinely cite their hope for the worldwide
elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the US maintains nuclear strike forces
on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use
posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States
will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the
planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the
prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the
non-proliferation of such weaponry?
21. Double standards (I):
American policymakers take it for granted that their country’s sphere of
influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment
of US military forces to scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like
China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes the position that spheres of influence
are obsolete and a concept that should no longer be applicable to
the practice of statecraft. So Chinese, Russian, and Iranian forces should
remain where they belong – in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray beyond
that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and
order. Why should these other nations play by American rules? Why
shouldn’t similar rules apply to the United States? Why should these other nations play by American rules? Why
shouldn’t similar rules apply to the United States?
22. Double standards (II):
Washington claims that it supports and upholds international law. Yet
when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to
do, they disregard it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other
nations, and authorize agents of the United States to kidnap, imprison,
torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to reverse
their actions on the rare occasions when US courts find them illegal. Why should
other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since the United States
does so only when convenient?
23. Double standards (III): The
United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians in
wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed
civilians regularly and often on a massive scale. By what logic, since the
1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians,
Cambodians, Afghans, and others by US air power been any less reprehensible
than the Syrian government’s use of “barrel bombs” to kill Syrians today? On
what basis should Americans accept Pentagon claims that, when civilians are killed these days by US
forces, the acts are invariably accidental, whereas Syrian forces kill
civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or the
fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States
regularly gloss over or ignore altogether the noncombatants that Saudi forces (with US assistance) are routinely killing in Yemen? Why, when civilians are killed these days by US
forces, [are] the acts invariably accidental, whereas Syrian forces kill
civilians intentionally and out of malice?
24. Moral obligations: When
confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members of the
chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to “do
something.” Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists
recycle copy first used when Cambodians were slaughtering other Cambodians en
masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of action –
typically advocating military intervention – argue that the United States has a
moral obligation to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on
Earth. But what determines the pecking order of such moral
obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of
others or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a
greater claim to US assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of
Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the US invasion of
2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the
Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an
American empire as the nineteenth century ended? Or African-Americans, whose
ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed and disinherited
Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral
obligations? And if not, shouldn’t those who have waited longest for justice or
reparations receive priority attention?
Let me suggest that any one of these two
dozen issues – none seriously covered, discussed, or debated in the American
media or in the political mainstream – bears more directly on the wellbeing of
the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything
Donald Trump may have said or done during his first 100 days as
president.
Collectively, they define the core of
the national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as
they languish on the periphery of American politics.
How much damage Donald Trump’s
presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a
transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert
attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to
make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the New York Times insists, the truth is now more important than
ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and
asking the right questions.
This piece is reposted from Tom.Dispatch.com
on
May 7,
2017 with that site's
permission.