Thursday, December 26, 2013

Can Heroes Ever Be Traitors?

Are Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden heroes or traitors?  Retired U.S. Army commander turned academic, Andrew J. Bacevich, doesn't know the answer but has some fascinating insights into how it will be reached.

...the question presumes a prior one: To whom do Army privates and intelligence contractors owe their loyalty? To state or to country? To the national security apparatus that employs them or to the people that apparatus is said to protect?

Those who speak for that apparatus, preeminently the president, assert that the interests of the state and the interests of the country are indistinguishable. Agencies charged with keeping Americans safe are focused on doing just that. Those who leak sensitive information undermine that effort and therefore deserve to feel the full force of law.

But what if the interests of the state do not automatically align with those of the country? In that event, protecting “the homeland” serves as something of a smokescreen. Behind it, the state pursues its own agenda. In doing so, it stealthily but inexorably accumulates power, privilege and prerogatives.

...Before the Good War gave way to the Cold War and then to the open-ended Global War on Terror, the nation’s capital was a third-rate Southern city charged with printing currency and issuing Social Security checks. Several decades of war and quasi-war transformed it into today’s center of the universe. Washington demanded deference, and Americans fell into the habit of offering it. In matters of national security, they became if not obedient, at least compliant, taking cues from authorities who operated behind a wall of secrecy and claimed expertise in anticipating and deflecting threats.

Popular deference allowed those authorities to get away with murder, real and metaphorical. Benefits accruing to the country proved mixed at best, and the expertise claimed by those inside the Beltway did not automatically translate into competence. If doubts on that score persisted, the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the mismanaged wars that followed ought to have demolished them.

Critics and outsiders are not privy to  the state’s superior knowledge; they are incapable of evaluating alleged threats.  It also insulates them from accountability and renders them impervious to criticism.  Here is the mechanism that confers status on insiders: the control of secrets. Their ownership of secrets puts them in the know

In such a mechanism, [journalist Randolph] Bourne observed, “dissent is like sand in the bearings.” The metaphor is singularly apt. In the realm of national security, dissent matters only when it penetrates the machine’s interior. Only then does the state deem it worthy of notice.

To understand this is to appreciate the importance of what Manning and Snowden have done and why their actions have produced panic in Washington. Here is irrefutable evidence of dissent penetrating the machine’s deepest recesses. Thanks to a couple of tech-savvy malcontents, anyone with access to the Internet now knows what only insiders were supposed to know.

By taking technology that the state employs to manufacture secrets and using it to make state secrecy impossible, they put the machine itself at risk. Forget al-Qaeda. Forget Iran’s nuclear program. Forget the rise of China. Manning and Snowden confront Washington with something far more worrisome. They threaten the power the state had carefully accrued amid recurring wars and the incessant preparation for war. In effect, they place in jeopardy the state’s very authority — while inviting the American people to consider the possibility that less militaristic and more democratic approaches to national security might exist.

In the eyes of the state, Manning and Snowden — and others who may carry on their work — can never be other than traitors. Whether the country eventually views them as patriots depends on what Americans do with the opportunity these two men have handed us.


Anonymous said...

Wired: Ex-Google Ad Man Saves You From Ad Hell

the salamander said...

.. a brilliant analysis & snapshot ..

And so easy to transpose to the clumsy, incompetent Harper PMO driven invasive illegal spying practices we now realize are being ordered. Against ordinary Canadians .. and to aid corporate entities operating internationally, outside of Canada, like Ecuador for example

I think “dissent is like sand in the bearings.” will be a reasonable but understated & harsh reality.. once concerned and caring Canadians mobilize to disarm & dismiss a rogue federal government and related political party.. that proclaims their toxic spying actions reflect Canadian values

Harper et al with their insulting 'Conservative Values Are Canadian Values' pompousness, might as well say 'we are thieves, spies and liars - and so are all Canadians' .. then see how that flies.. even with their insipid shrill base

Thanks MoS ..

The Mound of Sound said...

Hi, Sal. There's no question that we too are saddled with a state acting contrary to the best interests of the country. Just think of all the ways that has become part of Canadians' relationship with their federal and most provincial governments. It's the ugly face of corporatism at work.

Sand in the bearings. Yes, I think we must try to become something along those lines, each in his own way.