Captain Future's Log

Eternal Vigilance

Two news stories I noticed—each of them also flagged by a prominent southpaw blogger—contribute to a disquieting trend in recent proposals from the Bushcorps White House.

The first was Bush’s own suggestion, made at his press conference Tuesday. It was significant enough for an AP report to lead with it. He was speaking to the concerns of a possible global pandemic if something like the Asian bird flu mutates, which the UN estimated could kill as many as 150 million people worldwide. Bush chose to talk about a new role for the military in such an outbreak.

Jennifer Loven reported it this way: “President Bush stirring debate on the worrisome possibility of a bird flu pandemic, suggested dispatching American troops to enforce quarantines in any areas with outbreaks of the killer virus.

Bush asserted aggressive action could be needed to prevent a potentially crippling U.S. outbreak of a bird flu strain that is sweeping through Asian poultry and causing experts to fear it could become the next deadly pandemic. Citing concern that state and local authorities might be unable to contain and deal with such an outbreak, Bush asked Congress to give him the authority to call in the military. The idea raised the startling-to-some image of soldiers cordoning off communities hit by disease.

"The president ought to have all ... assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant," Bush said during a 55 minute question-and-answer session with reporters in the sun-splashed Rose Garden.

As Lovin noted: The president has already indicated he wants to give the armed forces the lead responsibility for conducting search-and-rescue operations and sending in supplies after massive natural disasters and terrorist attacks — a notion that could require a change in law and that even some in the Pentagon have reacted to skeptically.

She quotes Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of the Columbia University National Center for Disaster Preparedness, as calling the president's suggestion an "extraordinarily draconian measure" that would be unnecessary if the nation had built the capability for rapid vaccine production, ensured a large supply of anti-virals like Tamiflu, and not allowed the degradation of the public health system."The translation of this is martial law in the United States," Redlener said.

Bush is not alone in believing that the military should have a larger role in disasters, as apparently they already will have in something like a terrorist biological weapon attack. There are some reasonable arguments for this, as there are for an armed forces role in public health emergencies, because they have the manpower and some applicable resources, the ability to transport quickly, and other capabilities. But that’s really not the issue.

First of all, Bush proposes the troops for “security,” not general response. That’s what supporters miss (and I found myself in the unusual position, watching the PBS News Hour last week, of disagreeing with the representative from the Center for American Progress, and agreeing with the man from the Cato Institute, on this issue of the military’s role in disasters.)

And even stranger, I think Bush is right about one thing---the military would be most useful in security, because that’s what they do. They carry guns, and shoot them. They are trained in various methods of mayhem. They use force, and that’s what they know best. They simply aren’t trained well or at all for the tasks they would be most useful in performing in a domestic emergency.

This is not the World War II army. They don’t provide support even for themselves. Halliburton feeds them in Iraq. They pay corporations to do just about everything except fight, and they pay some corporations to do that as well. When the armed forces were given peacekeeping duty in Kosovo, their commander got himself a few weeks training, and the rest of them had none. The National Guard gets some training in disaster relief, and they are more experienced in it.

The lack of training shows up in the pattern of alienating and often brutalizing civilians in Iraq, and it certainly showed up in the prisons there. Until the military is trained for these new missions, they are going to be nothing but a blunt force, and if deployed in America, a potential threat to the lives and liberties of American citizens. (On that threat, I was interested to see that Plutonium Page of Daily Kos agrees.)

Now ask yourself, why is it that the first thing Bushcorps thought of was the military---the security issue---rather than the public health tasks? Is it a fixation on the wrong thing, like thinking the solution to terrorism was to invade Iraq? In the Katrina postmortems, there seemed to be the sense that a major reason that the Red Cross wasn’t allowed into New Orleans sooner was security concerns---which have turned out to be much less of a factor than first thought. When the federal government did show up, they showed up in force, literally: with thousands of troops and mercenaries armed and read to secure a nearly empty city.

But there might be more to it that this. Which brings us to the other story, as dug out by BooMan of the Booman Tribune blog . He focused on this paragraph from a report in the congressional newsletter, the Hill, concerning Bushcorps efforts to convince conservatives to support Bush's new nominee to the Supreme Court, his lawyer:

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, yesterday held a conference call with conservative leaders to address their concerns about Miers. He stressed Bush’s close relationship with Miers and the need to confirm a justice who will not interfere with the administration’s management of the war on terrorism, according to a person who attended the teleconference.

BooMan interpreted this phrase “who will not interfere with the administration’s management of the war on terrorism” as code for support for the Patriot Act and everything else Bushcorps wants, including abrogating civil and human rights at Guantanamo Bay, and a freer hand to use torture there and elsewhere, and to keep evidence of it out of the public eye.

It’s certainly something the Senate needs to ask Miers. What about the Bushcorps policy of not allowing Americans to be sanctioned by the world court or other courts of international law? Does the U.S. have a responsibility to obey the Geneva Conventions? And so on.

To be appropriately blunt about it, put these two stories together and you have the outlines of a military dictatorship in the making. Now maybe Bushcorps would be sincerely scandalized by such a thought, but it wouldn’t be entirely inconsistent. In some ways, it’s not even inconsistent with our history.

In the early 1890s, the Pullman Company was one of the largest and most powerful corporations in America. They made and maintained the train cars for America’s long-distance travel, especially by the wealthy. They also forced their workers to live in a company town, where they fleeced them for much of their wages. Then they used an economic downturn that didn’t affect them directly as an excuse for cutting wages by a third. The union went out on strike, and other railroad unions joined. Then before the strike could disrupt the Columbian Exhibition in Chicago---where American corporations showed off their vision of the future to the world---President Grover Cleveland sent federal marshals and half the standing army for “security,” to break the strike.

It wasn’t the first time that the military was used to benefit the ruling oligarchy, and it wasn’t the last. This one happened in George W. Bush’s great-grandfather’s time. It’s well within memory of the perpetual ruling class the Bushes belong to. None of this has to be conscious to be a factor.

It makes a scary kind of sense from their point of view. They've enriched the rich and impoverished the middle class, and eventually that could lead to trouble. The rich might need additional "security" for their gated universe.

When Thomas Jefferson said “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” he wasn’t talking about vigilance directed outward, to foreign powers. Nor did he mean the 18th century equivalent of environmental activists, or even pinko subversives. He was talking about bad laws and big time tyranny. He would not be surprised either if the party that promises to get government off your back is the one who winds up giving you government’s bayonet in your face.