US Succumbing to Tyranny of Endless War
ANGLO AMERICA, 26 Aug 2013
Global Times – TRANSCEND Media Service
Editor’s Note:
A rash of security issues inside and outside the US, from the Snowden case to the relations with Iran, has put the spotlight on Washington. Will Snowden trigger a domino effect that ensures more whistle-blowers? Will US diplomacy continue to be dominated by the Pentagon, rather than the Department of State?
Lawrence B. Wilkerson (Wilkerson), a retired US Army colonel and the former chief of staff for Colin Powell who served as US secretary of state from 2001 to 2005, shared his ideas on these issues.
GT: You said in a recent media interview that Edward Snowden was not a symptom, but a disease, caused by the “never-ending culture of war,” and that the US government is a “draconian government” and a “tyranny.” Why do you call the US a tyranny?
Wilkerson: First, the US is not a pure democracy and has never been one. It is a democratic federal republic. Second, with the so-called War on Terror, that republic has made war its raison d’être.
My fellow Virginian, James Madison, wrote eloquently of how a constant state of war breeds tyranny. The Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act, the NSA surveillance programs, the national security letter, the legal inclusion of the armed forces in domestic law enforcement, all of these are acts of tyranny.
Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said that we had created a republic – if we could keep it. Since 1972, Americans unfortunately have not been keeping it very well.
GT: You said the US government would “pressure more whistle-blowers to come forward to stop tyranny.” Is it possible that Snowden, though he has temporarily settled down in Russia, will still be able to trigger a domino effect that allows more whistle-blowers to follow him?
Wilkerson: Snowden will not cause this to happen; the developing tyranny will. As the US government becomes more and more draconian, as any state will become in a constant state of war, then more whistle-blowers will come forward.
Americans do not like tyranny, so the more the government turns to tyrannical methods to achieve its objectives, the more whistle-blowers will come forward.
In the US, people will stand up for their rights and expose the government’s actions. Eventually, this could even lead to instability in the US and even worse, which is why Washington needs leadership that can put a stop to the state of constant war.
GT: You were the chief of staff for former secretary of state Colin Powell, and when the decision was made to invade Iraq in 2003, you prepared the speech for him that laid out the case for the war. You described it as the “biggest mistake of your life.” You also explained “it was not an intelligence failure,” but “the massive politicization of intelligence by the leadership in Washington.” What consequences would it bring to the rest of the world and the US itself if Washington continued this “massive politicization of intelligence?”
Wilkerson: The Iraq War was an egregious example of this, and caused the death of at least a quarter of a million Iraqis. Much of the current unrest and violence in western Asia is a result of that war.
If we create another such “failure,” with Iran or Syria, for example, it will be catastrophic for the region and perhaps the world.
GT: A few days ago, US President Barack Obama promised to curb NSA surveillance, but a poll showed that only 11 percent trust him on this. Will Obama’s promise be realized as expected?
Wilkerson: Obama has a reputation for saying one thing and doing quite another.
I am a member of the Republican Party, but I voted for Obama, hoping he would do what he said he would do during his campaigns.
I have been gravely disappointed, because he has rarely lived up to his magnificent rhetoric, on domestic or foreign policy.
In this case of the NSA’s widespread and intrusive surveillance, he is trapped by so-called security experts who surround him. Unless Americans force the president to act, he will not.
GT: Last month, you signed a letter with a group of former US policymakers and dozens of sitting lawyers, calling on Obama to consider diplomacy with Iran after Hassan Rouhani is sworn in as Iran’s new president. Where will the US-Iranian relationship head in the future? What will be the largest barrier between these two nations?
Wilkerson: I hope that US-Iran bilateral negotiations, as well as P5+1 negotiations, will lead to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem.
There is now an opportunity that must be captured, with the election of a new Iranian president and the appointment of former foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi to head the nuclear talks.
But I am not optimistic because too many people want this diplomacy to fail, from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, to many leaders in Iran, to many people in the US Congress and elsewhere.
GT: Three years ago, when you talked about the China-US aircraft collision incident that happened in 2001, you mentioned former vice president Dick Cheney wanted to use the downing of the plane as an excuse to trigger a new Cold War against China. Considering the current Sino-US relations, especially after the summit between Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping, is a cold war still possible between the two countries?
Wilkerson: Yes, it is. But I do not expect a cold war to develop because both Beijing and Washington seem to understand that their two countries need each other to prosper.
With wise leadership in both capitals there need not be a war, cold or hot. But there are still people both in China and in the US who wish for a cold war because it feeds their interests and their wealth.
Taiwan could light that war. So, it is good to watch the careful building of contacts and trust between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan that is happening today.
GT: There seems to be a widely held consensus that the US Department of State is always much weaker in diplomatic affairs than the Pentagon, because the Pentagon is always regarded as the dominator of US diplomacy. What do you think?
Wilkerson: Since the end of the Cold War, US security policy has overwhelmed – or even become – foreign policy. This is one reason that the Pentagon dominates the Department of State.
In addition, the Pentagon receives more than $500 billion per year; the Department of State receives less than $50 billion.
With such a disparity, it is clear why the military dominates foreign policy. Unfortunately, because of this domination, it is also clear why war has become the US’ raison d’être.
Go to Original – globaltimes.cn
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.