Petraeus – Scandals and Veterans Day
History selected one man to oversee critical points in the defeat of the United States Armed Forces by two nations in Southwestern Asia. And in the short term, the ever obsequious American media rewarded him lavishly for it. That man was General David Petraeus.
- Petraeus as West Point grad
The corporate perception managers, the governments of both Bush and Obama, the military itself, and most of the general population of the United States, participated in a mythology about Petraeus – that he was a modern-day Clausewitz specializing in counter-insurgency, an intellectual warrior for the post 9-11 era.
Emblematic of that genius was a media event called The Surge, which accompanied an operation that was characterized mostly by paying people not to attack US soldiers in Iraq. The second surge was in Afghanistan, and we can see clearly now that this operation inaugurated the end game of defeat for the US in Afghanistan. The US was, contrary to its wishes, expelled by the Iraqis – another defeat.
That these are not seen as defeats by most Americans is a testament to that perception management bloc of military and media, which has managed to report on these wars for years now without ever using the word “defeat.” At this point, helicopters are never shot down; they “crash” under circumstances that are not yet clear.
This Veterans Day, we aging vets will again crawl out of our suburban foxholes to form Jingo Phalanxes on Main Streets all across the home of the brave; a national show of force for aging phallo-centrism.
We aging vets are soldiers left behind – by our own bodies, damn! – who have not been told the war is over. For us, it is over.
Now we enter into the precious body of war only on our national Easter, wherein the dead combatants are raised, and the newly-armed actors praised. Every soldier is a hero. We need a ribbon magnet for that.
We idolize war in the United States of America; and that is why the perception management bloc doesn’t honestly need to work that hard to get the general population with the program. The Bloc, so to speak, can look at militarized America and say, “Our work is done here. Mars be praised.”
This week, Petraeus, the Director of the CIA, stands disgraced by his extramarital affair with… a member of the media, his co-biographer, in fact – Paula Broadwell. The extremely tight relationship between the military-security apparatus and the media is now embodied, and as such, it has become a scandal.
I mean that in the biblical sense. Skandalon is the Greek equivalent of mikshowl in Hebrew, meaning a stumbling block. It is something that “trips people up.” One of the ways skandalon trips people up is by revealing something that deflates power – again in the biblical sense. And in this sense, the Petraeus affair has revealed, at least parabolically, the incestuous relationship between media and military.
Journalists are now seated on advisory boards for the CIA; and no one questions the journalistic propriety of that.
In the last two decades we have seen the media monopoly-military merger develop to the point that our wars are selectively used as reality TV. Generals are feted as if they are great public intellectuals. The lines between politics, entertainment, and official violence have been effaced – almost, as Petraeus just discovered.
In Petraeus, the merged-role of a General and that of a media star, both now mutually reinforcing, proved hazardous. Once upon a time, Petraeus was seen as a future President. No mas.
With your resume on the screen in the early 21st Century, in an age of the spectacle, the way to get noticed is to be spectacular on screen. Future historians will marvel at the superficialization of our culture as we slid into a state of mindless bureaucratic individualism. Images reflect images that are reflections of images. We buy books on personality makeovers. We take a lot of pills.
Power stumbles, power is revealed.
The scandal in the modern sense – doing things that are public outrages – is that Petraeus cheated on his wife. Fair enough. He resigned. Full stop. Loss of efficacy, and all that.
The more serious scandal might be that he revealed classified information to his confidante; and here is where the contradiction between journalism and the military is most clear. The security of the nation-state is paramount, more so when that state is already highly militarized.
What we have not heard, which ought to be a scandal, and is not, is that Petraeus may be guilty of war crimes. He was a commander when crimes were clearly committed: plunder and failure to protect civilians, torture, and wanton destruction. These are violations of law; and they did happen on his watch –quite a lot.
But since no one has the power to bring charges except Petraeus’ colleagues and the current government, he will never face those charges. The decision has been made. No prosecutions, because the wars themselves have been started and maintained by illegal means.
The media supports with silence. One peep, and they “lose access.”
Might makes right, and we oughtn’t forget it. Maybe I’ll carry that sign in the next Veterans Day parade.
Since none of his predations as a General will be a public scandal – because in the United States, we love war and men with guns – then we are left with little else to do but reflect on what we are. Here’s what I see.
We are a technologically-disembodied society without a justifying morality, captured by the economics of war. We have one civic God – the nation-state called United States of America – and our sacred relics are soldiers and former soldiers.
I can decry the elite PR apparatus ‘til the cows come home; but the fact is – as we can see every Veterans Day – we participate in this war-idolatry en masse. We are a lost people; and no government can fix that.
It’s scandalous.
Susan/catlady:
Thanks again, Stan, for sharing your perspectives on our nation’s military mythology and it’s national military holiday. I feel like I need to hide in my bedroom all day on Veterans’ Day, so as not to say some godawful horribly wrong thing to a veteran or member of a veteran’s family. I hear my anti-war friends say “Thank you for your service,” and I choke up, thinking “Service to what insane behemoth? I’m so sad you gave your body and soul to such cruel masters.”
I noticed you shared the Glenn Greenwald article on FB, so I thought I’d link it here as well:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/10-5
Greenwald includes a link to Paula Broadwell’s interview on The Daily Show back in January. What a perfect Delilah (like it’s _her_ fault): gorgeous, uber-physical and dressed to show it, military, highly educated, and married (flirting with her husband who is off-camera). Watching the show in light of this week’s news, there are some telling moments. At 6:27, Jon Stewart, referring to her refusal to claim juicy tidbits on Petraeus’ possible presidential bid, says “So integrity is running in the whole family, I guess.” Check out her expression just following.
10 November 2012, 10:47 pmGuy Montag:
“… the Petraeus affair has revealed, at least parabolically, the incestuous relationship between media and military.” Yep, Paula certainly had “full access” to Gen. Petraeus while she was an “embedded” reporter with him (and the title of her recent hagiography about King David’s Afghan War, “All In,” certainly takes on a new meaning!
But Broadwell’s not the only synchophantic reporter out there. Thom Shanker, the Pentagon’s NYT reporter, whitewashed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s 2004 friendly-fire death just before McChrystal’s June 2009 Senate confirmation hearing (in his book, Shanker described how he was given a private tour of McChnrystal’s new Pentagon HQ just after his confirmation. “Access” certainly has it’s perks!).
Although I spent 8 years in the Army as a ABN RGR LRRP, like Stan, I’m not too keen on glorifying war. Today, on Veteran’s Day, I’ll update my writing on how Pat Tillman has been turned into a lifeless patriotic icon by both the Pat Tillman Foundation and the NFL and review Marie Tillman’s (his widow) book, “The Letter’ (for my take on the “untold” Tillman story and on both McChrystal and Petraeus’s role in the Afghan War “Surge”, see my April 2012 post, “Something to Die For,” at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com)
11 November 2012, 9:27 amMichael Anderson:
Mike Ruppert said the war in Iraq wold be “won” when oil output from that country reached 2.5 million bpd. It is at 3 million bpd now & rising, and the US-Euro oil majors are in place with concessions.
The (forward operating) bases are there so we can harass and threaten Russia and China when needed. I believe Russia (and the whole continent of Asia, by association) is still a “final frontier” as far as a periphery goes–still lots of natural resources to exploit, and a stratified population that looks like a snapshot of what the U.S. may look like in another 20 years.
I don’t think, from what I’ve read on neo-con neo-lib strategy past and present, that these wars in SW Asia were ever deigned to be “won”, in the sense that we like to think of it. Low-level factional conflict is a necessary part of this strategy to keep populations divided and weak. But, that’s an old story. The MSM-MICC needs to keep these other, older memes alive as diversion. And, yes, it’s all to feed the core and maintain status quo.
One thing our media complex loves is the “hero’s fall from grace”. In the business of making celebrities, whether the publicity is positive or negative is immaterial—it’s all good, to keep the cult of personality alive. This whole thing has a weird, sick Ayn-Rand-ish Dagny Taggert-Hank Reardon aspect. Neither of them will pay the price for actions which would tear apart lives and families for the rest of us. Dave and Paulie will never have to worry about missing any meals on our account. And the Gods play on, and people die, like stepping on an ant.
12 November 2012, 3:11 pmjeff dodson:
i was in the army 88-91 for desert shield/storm…i still wonder if that thing was some kind of tipping point for our country…since i was in saudi arabia & iraq during that time i had no idea what was happening in the US then…when i returned i was shocked…it felt to me that the vibe of the country had dramatically changed…in the desert our commanding general gave us this big speech about how thrilled everyone was back home and how we were heroes and on and on…no sign of humility anywhere there and none upon return to the general public in the US…fastforward to 911 i was thinking the world is with us, i was so hoping for let’s go forth with a second chance at humility and we went in exactly the opposite direction……anywho, back to the petraeus/milatary&media love affair thing…….my question…i’ve been wondering for geez decades now…do you think things flipped military/media/public-wise back in ’91?…here’s a link to my link to then…http://mrluckygoestowar.wordpress.com/
12 November 2012, 5:27 pmpeace
Michael Anderson:
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any weirder:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-13/fbi-agents-search-home-of-petraeus-mistress/4369408
Top commander embroiled in Petraeus scandal
AND:
http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/11/13/obama-considers-kerry-for-defense-secretary/uuxfLFYJqGie7bzmhZ3a9N/story.html
Kerry may be choice for secretary of defense
Security shuffle follows Petraeus’s departure
We aren’t just “…a technologically-disembodied society without a justifying morality, captured by the economics of war…”. This country is a Hollywood comic book. Plan 9 From Outer Space with live ammunition.
13 November 2012, 1:58 amMichael Anderson:
Something a little deeper than romantic falderal on Petraeus:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9117
Petraeus Resignation Reveals Divisions Over Iran
Ray McGovern: It’s likely one reason there was no attempt to save Petraeus by White House was his Hawkish Stance on Iran
13 November 2012, 1:38 pmcabdriver:
Only slightly off-topic, Stan, I have a book recommendation for you:
What It Is Like To Go To War, by Karl Marlantes
I don’t want to get into a lengthy review of it, other than to say that I found the book to read almost like an antithesis to your own ideas about war, aggression, and masculinity. Except that most often, I find the point of a thesis-antithesis to be a productive synthesis, and I’m having a tough time putting one together in this case. In some crucial ways, Marlantes’ ideas and yours simply aren’t reconcilable as a dialectic.
That’s an unusual situation for me to encounter: I’m usually able to find a middle ground between two opposing ideas, if they’re sincere and thoughtfully expressed. I have to say that I take your points much more often than his. Still, it’s a well-written argument in defense of the legitimacy of contemporary soldiering, the necessity of the option of resort to organized armed force, and what Marlantes would refer to as the ethos of the principled warrior. Marlantes, who was a Marine platoon leader in Vietnam, is also of the mind that organized warfare is destined to retain profound importance as an institution in human affairs well into the forseeable future. Perhaps even a perpetual importance, if I’ve read him right.
I think it would really be something to witness a debate between you two. Not necessarily live and in person; a written exchange would probably be more detailed and thoughtful, in fact.
13 November 2012, 11:22 pmcabdriver:
oh yeah, Petraeus…
O Total Information Awareness:
What Hast Thou Wrought?
13 November 2012, 11:24 pmStan:
“Just war” theory as well as “just war” religious doctrine have been around for quite a while. While my ultimate reason for not participating in war and for opposing it however possible is my reading of the Gospels, there are serious questions that can be raised about ‘just war’ on purely secular grounds (define “justice,” eg, or the idea of “acceptable collateral damage). There are qualitative differences between wars that reflect qualitative changes in history. While imperial was still has a center-periphery driver, for example, the technology of 2nd C Rome makes war different, as does the difference between the Roman Republic and the modern nation-state, as does the difference in cosmologies between a Roman official and a modern one, a Roman soldier and a modern one. I think we often underestimate the degree of real difference between us and people who lived before us.
General war and total war are terms that describe modern war as a war on the whole society of the enemy (an idea that can be traced back to Sherman, who after the CW took up the task of exterminating aboriginal societies).
If the question is, can war be efficacious, the answer is yes. If the question is, can war be predictable, the answer is no; and herein is an ethical issue related to the precautionary principle. But the other question I can’t help but raise is, what does war do to the people who conduct it. That is what this post is about (not Petraeus). IIRC, Einstein said you can’t simultaneously prepare for war and prevent it. We internalize the logic of war – pure utilitarianism, with the world and everyone in it reduced to objects, pieces in a game. This is not just a posture. It is a mental condition, a psychological standpoint.
14 November 2012, 6:29 amcabdriver:
Stan, if you haven’t yet read the book I’ve recommended, check it out asap. I think it represents exactly what you’re talking about- the internalization of the logic of war, espoused skillfully, articulately and persuasively.
I’ve arrived at the same conclusions that you have on this subject, at least pretty nearly; I admit that I’m still sympathetic to the notion of armed self-defense, including group self-defense, and that’s a case where I’m still grappling with, insofar as how it reconciles with my understanding of an authentic Christian ethos. (It seems that I’ve been on much the same circuitous route as you and some others in this age- ending up with the ideals of Christianity in its first primary expressions, before it became transformed into an institution. Gospel Christianity. Red-letter Christianity, as it were.)
But I think it would be difficult going for me to make much headway against Karl Marlantes in a debate, personally- because I lack battlefield experience. For that matter, I lack any direct military experience at all. I’m an Army brat, the son of a West Point grad career officer. That’s as close as I’ve gotten to the experience of joining the military. It’s undeniably enriched my perspective on that score to some extent, but hardly enough to claim veteran status- much less “combat warrior” status. Whereas you share that ground of experience with Lt. Marlantes, MSgt. Goff. That grants you an added depth of credibility to challenge his stance that I don’t possess.
14 November 2012, 3:04 pmHenry:
Luke 22: 36-38
“And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one…Then they said, ‘Lord look, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘it is enough.’”
Medieval commentators on this distinguished between the “two swords,” auctoritas and potestas, respectively the spiritual and the temporal authorities.
19 November 2012, 1:58 pmHenry:
On a somewhat related issue, do our readers buy these handlings of statistics?
World Becoming Less Violent: Despite Global Conflict, Statistics Show Violence In Steady Decline
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html
Violence Vanquished
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180.html
The Decline of Violence
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-decline-of-violence
Personally, I find these articles to be monuments to skillful wielding of numbers to buttress bias. These people need to believe in progress at all costs, and in the teeth of the evidence. The easiest way to achieve this is of course to make the past as horrible as possible, and as if spreadsheets and surmises substitute for data, and as if quality of life can somehow be quantified.
19 November 2012, 2:04 pmMichael Anderson:
I think a lot of people in this country would be a lot less inclined to the logic of utilitarianism, in the context of war, if the general destruction of modern industrial war were visited upon them directly. When the mirrors are all broken, and the TV & cell phone towers are down, and the animals come out of their shells.
It’s easy to slough off brown people suffering 12,000 miles away on TV, especially when they’re sitting on OUR OIL (speaking of media mind prep).
And, due to aforementioned perception managers, the effect could very well be just the opposite—an enraged, wounded, disenfranchised population salivating for the blood of the invaders. Seig Heil. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition (a song from the first big petroleum-fueled war, WW1).
But there might be some who would open their eyes and see.
Not that I would want this scenario to happen, and certainly hope it doesn’t, but I have a funny feeling in my gut these days. Mike Ruppert said the only CERTAIN thing about the near future is its UNCERTAINTY.
20 November 2012, 3:22 pmKim Sky:
Armistice Day: “… all the people of all the nations which had fought in the First World War were silent during the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of Armistice Day, which was the eleventh day of the eleventh month. It was during that minute in nineteen hundred and eighteen, that millions upon millions of human beings stopped butchering one another. I have talked to old men who were on battlefields during that minute. They have told me in one way or another that the sudden silence was the Voice of God. So we still have among us some men who can remember when God spoke clearly to mankind.
“Armistice Day has become Veteran’s Day, Armistice Day was sacred. Veteran’s Day is not.”
From Kurt Vonnegut’s preface to his book titled “Breakfast of Champions”
25 November 2012, 11:33 amMichael Anderson:
Is this what you were talking about, Stan?
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13990-how-did-the-gates-of-hell-open-in-vietnam
17 January 2013, 4:20 pmStan:
Yup.
18 January 2013, 8:04 amcabdriver:
Michael, the book Kill Anything That Moves, reviewed by Jonathan Schell of TomDispatch in that Truthout link you supplied, was also well-reviewed in today’s Washington Post.
The reviewer was John Tirman, “executive director of the MIT Center for International Studies and the author of “The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America’s Wars””, per the end blurb in the review.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-anything-that-moves-the-real-american-war-in-vietnam-by-nick-turse/2013/01/25/f6f8db0c-5e95-11e2-90a0-73c8343c6d61_story_1.html
I didn’t expect to read such a sympathetic review in the Post, actually.
If I ever found similar sentiments expressed in their editorial pages, that would really surprise me. Especially if the observations were phrased as plainly ans unsparingly as they were in that review.
27 January 2013, 11:02 pmcabdriver:
Apologies- my link only led to the 2nd page of the review.
here’s the beginning
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-anything-that-moves-the-real-american-war-in-vietnam-by-nick-turse/2013/01/25/f6f8db0c-5e95-11e2-90a0-73c8343c6d61_story.html?wprss=rss_books
27 January 2013, 11:06 pm