The Observer, April 14, 2006
Volume XXXVIII, Issue 24
Free Speech Zone: New name doesn't change the rules of the game
In recent months, the leadership of the U.S. military has begun to use the term "The Long War" to describe our current military operations around the world, replacing the equally ambiguous term "War on Terror." "The Long War," first articulated as a concrete policy in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report (QDDR), has been billed as a decades-long struggle against terrorism and other threats to U.S. interests abroad. Top administration officials from Donald Rumsfeld to George W. Bush himself are attempting to peg this conflict as the struggle of the current generation and have attempted to draw parallels with World War II and the Cold War. This may seem like a pessimistic assessment and a gloomy outlook for the future, but the military probably couldn't be happier.
During the Cold War, long after any threat of a direct military confrontation with the Soviets had passed, the military continued to acquire large portions of the U.S. annual budget for useless and often extravagant expenditures which were paid for with the knowledge that they were totally unnecessary. Maybe it was just a coincidence that weapons and weapon-systems contractors would make huge profits building worthless arsenals of bombs, jet fighters, and tanks and then, in turn, fund the politicians who gave them the handout to begin with. This cycle was constant and increased in intensity in the later years of the Cold War. When the Cold War ended, so did much of the justification for such a huge military budget. But now the "threat" of global terrorism has filled the role formerly occupied by the "threat" of global Communism.
The result is that everyone wins, from the administration's perspective. The military gets lots of new expensive toys to play with and has fun in the figurative sandbox of the Middle East. The weapons contractors who paid for George Bush's campaign get billions upon billions of dollars and can go back to designing pointless weapons systems which will never see deployment. And finally, the politicians and think-tanks in Washington get a fat, juicy red herring to dangle over the head of the American public. Ever since 9/11, this country has become the most security-obsessed culture the planet has ever known. A populace in a perpetual state of paranoia is not likely to ask questions when national security is used to justify any policy. If there are any doubts as to the true intentions of the current policy-makers, one only needs to look back to the Cold War; when, ironically, many of the administration officials got their start in government by employing such policies.
The rhetoric used in the QDDR and in speeches by military and administration officials is clearly trying to re-establish the Cold War militaristic mentality. In a Feb. 15 article, The Guardian outlined the proposals of the QDDR. Included was a 2007 budget request of $513 billion, all supposedly to track down a few thousand global terrorists. If this seems a bit excessive, there is a reason. Whereas the administration attempted to incorporate the Iraq War into the "War on Terror," it is now attempting to expand the number of undefined threats even further with the re-classification of our current military escapades as "The Long War."
What does this mean for the future? While it is easy to blame the Bush Administration for this regressive shift in foreign policy, the issue goes beyond whoever is sitting in office at the time. What "The Long War" signifies is a permanent change in the foreign policy of the United States from limited and large-scale engagement, to unlimited small-scale psychological wars and covert operations. United States military and security forces are now vindicated in operations in any country on the globe based on mere suspicion. From Iraq to Iran and beyond; if you loved the unending militarization and wasteful expenditure of the Cold War, you'll love "The Long War."
