Opinion

The antiwar thinktank: West Point

Yesterday the Times had a great piece on a West Point colonel, Gian Gentile, who has opposed the new militant doctrine of Counter Insurgency. Reporter Elisabeth Bumiller says there’s an active debate about US policy at the military academy:

Broadly, the question is what the United States gained after a decade in two wars.

“Not much,” Col. Gian P. Gentile, the director of West Point’s military history program and the commander of a combat battalion in Baghdad in 2006, said flatly in an interview last week. “Certainly not worth the effort. In my view.”

Colonel Gentile also has a great post up at the Atlantic slamming General Stanley McChrystal’s decision to give a seminar at Yale but keep it off the record. Guess there’s more debate at West Point than at Yale.

Gentile’s outspokenness reminds me: These days inside the US establishment, the military is the leading antiwar voice. Institutional liberalism is not taking a strong role in opposing American militarism. The strongest statements about the Palestinian issue have been from generals.

Don’t get me wrong, there is clearly a strong grassroots antiwar left in the country– the occupy movement, Norman Solomon’s congressional campaign in California, Code Pink’s brave leaders, just to name a few. But inside American mainstream institutions, the strongest criticism of America’s overseas adventures lately has come from a West Point colonel. Not to mention that rightwing libertarian running for president as a Republican, Ron Paul. The Brookings Institution isn’t antiwar. The Council on Foreign Relations is full of rightwing militants. And though there are antiwar congresspeople– Lynne Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Walter Jones, and Dennis Kucinich– they are outliers. Conservative forces have played an important antiwar role. Antiwar.com is a libertarian site, the American Conservative has lionized the great Bradley Manning

Why are liberal institutions AWOL? The main reason is the successful divorce of elites from military service with the end of the draft. So liberal establishment figures no longer had to worry about their children serving in stupid wars they supported. The New Yorker played a leading role opposing the Vietnam War, but supported the Iraq war. And yes, I think the Israel lobby also plays a role; traditional doves turned into hawks when it came to the Middle East. And these hawks have had a prominent role in establishment institutions. Joe Lieberman, Howard Berman, and Chuck Schumer all began their careers as anti-Vietnam-war liberals.  No longer. Haim Saban funds Brookings, and he’s an ardent Zionist. The Center for American Progress is closely aligned with the Democratic Party and it has done a famously lousy job of resisting the push for war with Iran. During Vietnam, Senator Gene McCarthy ran against the war inside the Democratic Party. So did George McGovern. Those prominent Dems can’t be found this time round.

P.S. Helena Cobban is on the Gentile interview here.

54 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

RE: “The Brookings Institution isn’t antiwar…Why are liberal institutions AWOL? …Haim Saban funds Brookings, and he’s an ardent Zionist.” ~ Weiss

SEE: “Haim Saban”, by Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic, June 10, 2007

(excerpt) If you’re interested in the foreign policy views of major Hillary Clinton financial backer Haim Saban, there’s no need to follow the Atrios path of attempting guilt by association with Kenneth Pollack*. He discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a reasonably recent interview with ‘Haaretz’:

When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger…”…

SOURCE – http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/06/haim-saban/40714/

* FROM WIKIPEDIA [Kenneth Pollack]:

(excerpts) Kenneth Michael Pollack, PhD (born 1966), is a noted former CIA intelligence analyst. . .
. . . Outside of government, he worked for the Brookings Institution as the director of research at its Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He previously worked for the Council of Foreign Relations as their director of national security studies. . .
. . . Pollack is credited with persuading liberals of the case for the Iraq war. “New York Times” columnist Bill Keller, in supporting the Iraq war in 2003, wrote “Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush.”[2] . . .
. . . A U.S. government indictment alleges that Pollack provided information to former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) employees Steve J. Rosen and Keith Weissman during the AIPAC espionage scandal.[8] . . .

SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pollack

P.S. ALSO SEE: Thinktank [Foundation for Defense of Democracies] that promoted war w/ Iraq (& now Iran) was funded by Steinhardt, Saban, Bronfman, Feith and Marcus (of Home Depot)https://mondoweiss.mystagingwebsite.com/2011/07/thinktank-that-promoted-war-w-iraq-now-iran-was-funded-by-steinhardt-saban-bronfman-feith-and-marcus-of-home-depot.html

That name!
How could West Point employ someone with such an anti-semitic moniker???
:D

Patrick J Buchanon has a good piece over at Antiwar.com, mentioned Mondoweiss and quotes Phil Weiss ” I am still reeling” on the debate with Jeremy Ben Ami. [How Bill Kristol purged the Arabists Antiwar.com 29-04 2012]

I wouldnt say there is a “strong” left of any kind, but thats just me.

As for liberal institutions and their stances regarding war and such – I think its as much about class and wealth as it is about the draft. Im sure this will get me bashed, but among “the left” there is an overwhelming level of condescension and general disdain for the military and the people who would join it. In our society, where going to college and so on are generally accepted by all as “the thing to do” – by joining the military, in some peoples eyes, you’ve given up, or had to join because you lacked what it takes to succeed in civilian society; this has a way of “otherizing” the military, especially among “the left” – who all apparently, went to Harvard and shit.

*If I have to remind Citizen again that I am a former Marine, Im gonna flip out*

Liberal institutions are busy doing other things, like discussing queer theory in pets, and trying to save the kids at Harvard a couple bucks on their student loan interest- you didnt get the memo, Phil? And besides Phil, West Point is full of strapping young people, people who are smart and broad-shouldered AND competitive, both physically AND mentally, and identify only with a catch all like ‘cadet’ – this is a direct threat to the current “left.” So, better to distance yourself from people like this. I guess what Im saying is, I think “the left” hates folks like those at west point slightly more than they hate war.

My comment above should read todays Antiwar.com 29-o5-2012 not april. Sorry.