Minneapolis
demonstration during jury selection in trial
of George Floyd's killer,
April 19, 2021 as people continued to fight
for their own interests and
demand accountability.
While U.S. President Joe
Biden organized a Summit for Democracy in
Washington, DC on December
9-10, 2021, close to 100 former high-ranking
U.S. national security
officials sent a letter to Congress -- not to
the President who is
Commander-in-Chief or to the Summit for
Democracy, but to Congress --
to express their concerns about the state of
the U.S. democracy.
Biden organized
the Summit to bring together "leaders from
more than 100 governments
alongside activists, trade unionists, and
other members of civil
society, leading experts and researchers, and
representatives from the
business community," to "lock arms and
reaffirm our shared commitment
to make our democracies better," as he put it.
These included various
organizations and individuals the U.S. is
already funding and backing
internationally, such as the Community of
Democracies and groups like
the Young African Leaders Initiative and Young
Southeast Asian Leaders
Initiative. What have always been called
non-governmental organizations
are now called civil society organizations
(CSOs). The Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), a major
health care union and the
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) were
also present, among others.
At the Summit Biden put
forward his Presidential Initiative for
Democratic Renewal,
which involves establishing various
organizational forms that serve to
bring all these forces together, both
nationally and internationally.
They are organizational forms that essentially
serve to bypass and
replace existing authorities and standards,
such as those enshrined in
the United Nations Charter and the UN itself,
while putting
decision-making power in the hands of the U.S.
presidency. The
Initiative itself is called "a significant,
targeted expansion of U.S.
government efforts to defend, sustain, and
grow democratic resilience
with like-minded governmental and
non-governmental partners." It is
backed by an initial $424.4 million, with the
State Department and its
U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) playing a main role.
Meanwhile, the people signing the letter sent
to Congress
include those from the military, intelligence,
and the diplomatic corps
who have served Democrat and Republican
administrations and/or
administrations of both parties. While their
letter focuses on
elections, they are far more concerned about
making sure privileged
elites remain in power and the people are kept
out on the basis of
peaceful transitions of power. They seek to
make sure peaceful
transitions are not in jeopardy.
The letter begins:
"We write to express our alarm at ongoing
efforts to destabilize and
subvert our elections... We believe these
efforts are profoundly
damaging to our national security."
Two of the more
influential signers, both former Air Force
Generals, James R. Clapper
and Michael Hayden, also published an op-ed in
the Washington
Post. Clapper and Hayden express the
legitimacy problem of
the rulers and their preoccupation with
defeat. They write: "Poll after
poll shows declining trust in our elections
and declining belief in the
concept of democracy... and these effects will
not be contained to our
borders... A society struggling to separate
fact from fiction is the
perfect environment for these actors to
further erode electoral trust
and kick democracy into a death spiral."
They
continue with fear of U.S. decline on the
world stage. "The once-high
regard for American democracy is in steep
decline, and with it
America's global influence and moral
authority," they write.
Given that the
majority of the people in the U.S. are armed,
many with military
training, the letter writers also fear that
the civil war they speak of
could turn into one where it is the people who
rise and fight in their
own interests.
These forces recognize the
connection between civil war and imperialist
war. One can give rise to
the other. In the past, the U.S. has used the
tactic of launching an
imperialist war to unite the contending
factions and prevent civil war.
But the latest such wars against Iraq and
Afghanistan, besides others
such as Libya, Yemen and Syria, have not
achieved that aim. The
conditions of disequilibrium brought on by the
retreat of revolution
have deepened. This disequilibrium set in when
the former Soviet Union
collapsed and the domination of the world by
two superpowers ended
along with it. The striving of powerful
private interests which have
usurped the states of various countries goes
hand in hand with their
inability to sort out their conflicts on a
peaceful basis. Anarchy and
violence have been raised to the position of
authority revealing the
need for democratic political renewal but this
need is not what Biden
and others in the U.S. are addressing.
The
inability of the current institutions to sort
out conflicts was further
evident on December 17 when yet another public
stand was taken by three
retired Army Generals shortly after Biden's
Democracy Summit. They
openly spoke of the likelihood of violent
civil war in a Washington
Post opinion
piece where they reference the January 6, 2021
Trump coup attempt and
say they are "increasingly concerned about the
aftermath of the 2024
presidential election and the potential for
lethal chaos inside our
military, which would put all Americans at
severe risk."
"We
are chilled to our bones at the thought of a
coup succeeding next
time," the three retired Army Generals wrote.
They outlined a scenario
of a contested election and divided loyalties
within the military, with
rogue units armed and taking action and arms
that "might not be secured
depending on who was overseeing them. Under
such a scenario, it is not
outlandish to say a military breakdown could
lead to civil war."
"The potential for a total breakdown of the
chain of command
along partisan lines -- from the top of the
chain to squad level -- is
significant should another insurrection
occur," the retired Army
Generals write.
As a means to solve these problems,
the Generals say "the Defense Department
should war-game the next
potential post-election insurrection or coup
attempt to identify weak
spots. It must then conduct a top-down debrief
of its findings and
begin putting in place safeguards to prevent
breakdowns not just in the
military, but also in any agency that works
hand in hand with the
military." "The military cannot wait for
elected officials to act," the
generals said.
The irony of asking a divided
military to conduct and oversee war games to
avoid civil war seems to
escape these Army Generals. The call to
"war-game" the situation is a
call to prepare for civil war, one which
includes targeting and
removing what the Generals refer to as
"propagandists" within the
military's ranks. Despite their facts
concerning divided loyalties
already existing, they also propose having the
Pentagon reinforce
"unity of command" to make "perfectly clear to
every member of the
Defense Department whom they answer to," and
have a "review of the laws
of war and how to identify and deal with
illegal orders."
It
is a dictatorial call to concentrate powers.
Given that the U.S. wages
illegal aggressive wars and relies on illegal
orders, including illegal
drone strikes, what the Generals plan to
implement is not clear,
logical or convincing. Nonetheless, while the
proposals are irrational
in the context of the divided loyalties that
exist as part of the
vicious battles for power within the military
and between the military
and president, they are significant in so far
as they reflect the very
real threat of embroiling the people in
violent civil war, and the very
real possibility of U.S. military and policing
forces dividing not only
at the federal level but between states and
the federal government.
This is also evident in how the National Guard
is being used. The
National Guard is under the authority of the
Governor of each state.
They are, however, part of the armed forces
and can be federalized by
the president, in which case they come under
presidential control. The
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example,
could not have been fought
without use of the National Guard.
Governors can
nonetheless refuse to comply with federalizing
the National Guard under
their command and they can also call the Guard
into action themselves.
For example, the Texas National Guard is being
used by the Governor at
the border against refugees and immigrants
coming into the country.
Florida and South Dakota sent their Guard to
Texas to assist. Federal
troops also remain at the border. And there
are the armed Border Patrol
and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
forces as well. One
wonders if Biden has kept the military there
in part to contend with
the Texas National Guard, as well as to
potentially launch attacks
against Mexico. The border, like the
elections, is another potential
trigger for both civil war and imperialist
war.
In
another example, Biden has mandated that all
military forces get
vaccinated for COVID. The Governors of
Oklahoma, Alaska, Iowa,
Mississippi, Nebraska and Wyoming are
contesting this, saying the
National Guard of each state is under the
command of the Governors, not
the President, until and unless they are
federalized. Brigadier General
Thomas Mancino, the commanding general of the
Oklahoma National Guard,
refused the order from President Biden
mandating vaccinations, saying
his commander is the Governor.
This open defiance
of the role of the President as
Commander-in-Chief is further
indication of the degree to which the
divisions among the vying
factions are reaching a point of open, violent
civil war. And all
consider the 2024 elections a likely
time-frame, something now being
promoted by academics and the monopoly media
as well.
Retired
or not, the military is not supposed to openly
challenge the
Commander-in-Chief nor make their concerns
public. The fact that this
has become the norm, such as when various
supposedly public servants
publicly lined up behind either Clinton or
Trump in the 2016 election,
or when the 124 military forces publicly
supported Trump's claims that
the election was not legitimate in 2020, is an
indication that the U.S.
state machinery is no longer a single
machinery, but is splintering and
dividing and does not answer to a single
authority.
Clearly
the democratic institutions with their
elections are no longer able to
resolve the conflicts among the contending
forces. Further, given that
the private interests which have taken over
the powers of the state are
global, talk of representing a "national
interest" no longer jives with
the reality. Contending forces are in a
vicious fight to claim their
faction represents the "national interest" and
their rivals are
committing treason. Indeed, the more these
divisions and lack of "unity
of command" intensify, the more difficult it
becomes to speak of a
United States in any sense of the name.
This article was published in
Volume 52 Number 1 - January 9, 2022
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/Tmlm2022/Articles/M520019.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
