Swinging their batons with vigor, the Chicago police drive
protestors back and away from the heavily guarded building where NATO ministers
are meeting. The footage I watched aired on Democracy Now and in addition to
the crowd scenes showed veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions tossing
their medals in the street; a few of them apologized to the people of Iraq and
Afghanistan for destroying their respective countries.
NATO, lest we forget forget, is the acronym of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, conceived in the aftermath of World War II to
contain Soviet expansionist designs in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union is long
defunct but NATO lives on as the military arm of the global 1%, active in
conflicts far from its headquarters in Brussels.
The United States funds an inordinate share of NATO’s
military budget, and in return NATO provides legitimacy, of sorts, for our
invasion and decade-long occupation of Afghanistan. Under NATO’s aegis, the
United States can claim it isn’t acting unilaterally. The claim is BS and
cannot stand scrutiny (everyone knows who calls the shots and runs the show),
but it allows our politicians to salve their consciences and sleep easier at
night, as well as making it possible for our less-than-enthusiastic partners to
convince their constituents that when it comes to NATO, it’s one for all and
all for one.
The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the war in
Afghanistan and beginning to understand the staggering costs in blood and
treasure, multiplying year after year with no end in sight, despite what the
president says, but the political class remains immune to the public will.
Popular sentiment against the war is present, but not focused enough to force
politicians to pay attention. It’s often said that politics is really about
distribution – who gets what, when, and how much – and it’s clear that in the
United States the military-security complex is first in line, exempt from
austerity fever, and ever and always sacrosanct.
Even in a depression we find
money for wars, for bombs, for aircraft, for ships, while the growing needs of
citizens for affordable health care, decent jobs, education and public
infrastructure are ridiculed as unaffordable “entitlement” programs that must
be trimmed or sacrificed.
In this era of austerity and debt hysteria we can even find
$70 million to hand to Israel for missile defense. What could $70 million buy
here in our own nation, where so many are struggling? We can’t even debate the
question because to do so is to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, and in
contemporary America, dissent is verboten, a lesson delivered to the Chicago
protestors at the business end of a police baton.