.

United States Militarism 

John Roberts

11/24/03 (ICH) Unlike British, American militarism only dates back a couple of centuries. But as in other revolutionary regimes, there was, from its inception, an assumption that violence would be successful in the birth of the state. 

Since that was allied to the practical and continuing subjection of a slave population, the hierarchical nature of US society was emphasised from the outset and the conquest of the indigenous native population over the next century merely confirmed the importance of the military in controlling and dominating the formative years of the republic.

The lesson of the civil war was that the republic could be very militaristic. After all, it achieved the first modern war, with railway transport as the key to final success and casualties on a truly industrial scale. Even if successful generals might take care to retire, as Washington had done in an example praised and highly regarded, the military traditions were reborn and in the army and navy were treasured and eulogised. The republic kept an honoured place for its office class, already an elite that would wax through successive 
campaigns. By the time that overseas imperial expansion began in 1898 this was already clear.

However, the dynamic of democracy during years of peace was adequate to reduce the military to a subordinate position for the first two centuries. 

Not until the Second World War did the tendency to rely upon military models and heroes as a guide to political choice become fully significant. The election of a pacific general - Eisenhower - as president was a sign of the changing times but the dismissal of another commanding general - MacArthur - by a civilian president had already quelled fears of a militaristic take-over. And of course, the popular self-deception that imperialism was something for other nations and could only be abhorred by Americans, permitted the military to bask in democratic approval as being other than militaristic.

Bur the pattern of economic and military domination was laid down too clear to ignore or avoid. By 1951 the US had built up a nuclear weapon stock capable of destroying all civilisation several times over and with a hundred military bases in dozens of countries, the influence of the military grew year by year. The military-industrial-scientific-bureaucratic complex became steadily more important and the role of democratic politicians was correspondingly reduced and corrupted. This occurred inexorably and was commented upon, but since its deep-rooted causes were being fed continuously by the expansion of American commerce and industry nothing could seriously challenge it.

The changes went hand in hand with the shift in social attitudes, from a democratic spirit that had been kept alive by the individualism of small communities and social groups to an acceptance of large-scale and hierarchical business and politics. The susceptibility of the American public to the appeal of wealth and power became steadily more apparent. The old-style small-town model was replaced by the propaganda of giant corporations. Vast urban sprawls ensured also millionaire leaders (soon to be billionaires), chosen from a ruling class that either required great wealth to get on the ladder to the top, or who could enrich themselves on the way. This changed pattern fitted much better with a hierarchical society that suited militaristic attitudes.

At the same time, the growing proportion of public wealth devoted to the military also ensured that the armaments industry, wrapped up with the nuclear and airplane corporations would become increasingly important. The influence and overwhelming power of these groups ensured that they would play a greater and greater part in political life, perhaps culminating in the corrupt presidential election of 2000, when the 
oil industry and its Republican allies effected a take-over which led directly to a war both entered into mendaciously and illegal with a delusory "war on terrorism" that will be an excuse and a struggle that can last for decades. 

Huey Long was reported as saying that fascism could come in the United States, but it ''will have to be called anti-Fascism' and the current militarism has be disguised as a drive to protect freedom, which is precisely what the present administration is about with its Patriot and other Acts. The assault on Iraq to take over its oil-fields, slenderly disgused as an attack on the dictator who was a favoured purchaser of American equipment until he failed to observe all the US requirement, may be in trouble, but it is part of the American corporations' drive to take over more of the world.That will require an intensificaiton of the militarisation of American society. The future of American democracy will be in as much peril as was the Iraqi dictator.

Copyright: John Roberts. 2003.