<< active-duty officers did not express their doubts in public for fear of being branded as disloyal by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a hawkish zealot with little tolerance of dissent... >>
So, should active-duty officers oppose civilian authority, even one that is (in my view) illegitimate? What is Klare suggesting here?
One can cite instances where democratic elements in a military establishment have fought to maintain popular sovereignty and constitutional law vs. anti-constitutional forces. But I see none of that in the US military hierarchy, nor does Klare give any evidence that such an element exists, let alone that such an element will stand up and oppose the Bush regime on democratic grounds. So what's the point? That this current crop of generals, like any other crop, disagrees over military strategy, and engages in self-serving political positioning? Big deal.
There is, however, without any doubt, a strong element in the US "defense" hierarchy that favors ever-increasing militarization of the society at large. I'm not sure that it's a majority element in the military; it doesn't have to be. Bush repays this bunch in spades. And he will not get any of the none-too-covert undermining of his authority by the military that plagued the weakly right-wing Clinton.
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:18:35 -0500
>
>http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=klare
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>