O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.

segunda-feira, 5 de novembro de 2012

Estatisticas do blog: quanto menos escrevo, mais me acessam (ou ao blog...)

Contraditório, mas a vida é assim mesmo. Passei os últimos dias enterrado no computador, escrevendo um longo trabalho de 34 p. e não postei praticamente nada de interessante, mas eis que a frequência e os acessos aumentos, segundo as estatísticas que acessei por acaso (estava tentando postar uma maldita matéria sobre vinhos chineses, Argh!!!, que não queria entrar de jeito nenhum, e ainda não quer).
Verifiquei que a curva embicou para cima, melhor, em todo caso, do que as taxas de crescimento nos EUA e na UE, que estão justificando o título de "Great Recession".
Quais são os dados?
Estes:

Atualizações


Visualizações de página
Gráfico de visualizações de página do Blogger
Principais origens de tráfego - www.google.com.br | www.google.com |www.facebook.com

Visualizações de página de hoje
2.022
Visualizações de página de ontem
1.545
Visualizações de página do mês passado
52.757
Histórico de todas as visualizações de página
1.037.846



Postagens

Liberdade na Estrada: Brasilia (UnB), 8/11/2012

Prezados leitores, navegantes, curiosos, marxistas, neoliberais, socialistas, austríacos e keynesianos,
(Bem, vocês podem não ser nada disso, e ser apenas seres normais, o que espero sinceramente.)
Abaixo o o cartaz do um evento esta semana em Brasília, onde terei a honra de contar para vocês, como um dos palestrantes, um pouco do que aprendi numa vida intelectual que começou marxista, enveredou pela social-democracia, e hoje é bem mais libertária e anarco-capitalista, cheia de leituras, de viagens, de experiências enriquecedoras (nada como a vida para nos corrigir dos defeitos da juventude, que como dizia Nelson Rodrigues, tem todos os defeitos da vida adulta, com um agravante: a inexperiência, ou a imaturidade).

Em todo caso, já postei um texto no site, anunciado no blog, que serviu de base para minha palestra na inauguração deste ciclo, em Porto Alegre. Vejam aqui: 
O futuro do Brasil está no passado (de outros países); link: 

O evento será na UnB (Anfiteatro 2, ICC - Ala Sul UnB).
Espero vocês lá, dia 8/11, quinta-feira, as 19hs...

Maiores informações também aqui: http://www.liberdadenaestrada.com.br/

A indigencia intelectual do Enem (a de seus formuladores, mais exatamente...)

A coisa se repete a cada ano: seja nos vestibulares, seja nos Enems da vida, nos Enads que não representam nada, em vários concursos enviesados (e isso inclui a diplomacia, também), sem falar, obviamente, do ensino médio, possivelmente o maior repositório mundial, de longe e hors concours, de besteirol por centimetro quadrado que é possível angariar no planeta, nos últimos dois ou três séculos (e isso graças aos professores debiloides que praticam a mais vulgar das contrafações "humanitárias", a favor dos pobres e dos oprimidos, contra o capitalismo perversos, os mercados desregulados e os loiros de olhos azuis, responsáveis por todas as nossas desgraças...
Eu gostaria de ter tempo, como esse jornalista, de escrever a respeito, pois certamente teria muita matéria prima para a minha série das falácias acadêmicas e para gozações sobre esses fatos da vida, que nas mãos (e nos pés) dos energúmenos do MEC (e seus apaniguados) se transformam em teorias sobre a salvação dos povos por via das políticas de inclusão, de benefícios sociais, ou de simples progressismo debilóide.
Mas, como não tenho tempo, deixo a tarefa para quem tem tempo e paciência para escrever sobre bobagens.
Realmente, eu tenho uma imensa pena dos nossos estudantes, obrigados a escutar, repetir e ter de concordar com a indigência intelectual que os companheiros da educação e as "saúvas freirenas" despejam encima deles. Pobres alunos, acabam ficando, pelo menos uma parte, como os quadrúpedes que dão aulas para eles...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 


Reinaldo Azevedo, 5/11/2012

Não vi no detalhe a prova do Enem. Sei que professores de cursinho divergem sobre a resposta de algumas questões, a maioria relacionada a interpretação de texto, que costuma mesmo ser terra de ninguém. Mas não vou me ater a isso agora. Quero aqui comentar o tema da redação.
Poucas pessoas se deram conta de que o Enem — quem quer tenha elaborado a prova — deu à luz uma teoria e obrigou os pobres estudantes a escrever a respeito, a saber: “O movimento imigratório para o Brasil no século XXI”. Ainda que houvesse efetivamente um fenômeno de dimensão tal que permitisse tal afirmação — não há —, cumpre lembrar que estamos apenas nos 12 primeiros anos do referido século.
“Século”, em ciências humanas, não é só uma referência temporal. É também um tempo histórico. Mais 30 anos podem se passar, sem que tenhamos chegado à metade do século 21, e podem diminuir drasticamente as correntes — que nem são fluxo nem são movimento — de migração para o Brasil. Tratar esse evento como característica de século é burrice. Provo: “O PT é o partido que mais elegeu presidentes no século XXI”. O que lhes parece? Ou ainda: “O PSDB é o maior partido de oposição do século XXI no Brasil”. Ou isto: “O PMDB, no século 21, participa de todos os governos”.
Ao estudante, são apresentados três textos de referência. Um deles trata da imigração para o Brasil no século 19 e começo do século 20 e de sua importância na formação do país. Um segundo aborda a chegada dos haitianos ao Acre, e um terceiro trata dos bolivianos clandestinos que trabalham em oficinas de costura em São Paulo.
Vejam que curioso. O examinador acabou fazendo a redação — e das ruins, misturando alhos com bugalhos. Tenta-se induzir os alunos a relacionar essas duas ocorrências recentes — a chegada de haitianos e de bolivianos — aos fluxos migratórios do passado, quando houve um claro incentivo oficial à entrada de imigrantes. Os fatos de agora não guardam qualquer relação de forma ou conteúdo com o que se viu no passado.
Mas e daí? O Enem não está interessado em rigor intelectual — e bem poucos alunos do ensino médio teriam, com efeito, crítica suficiente para estabelecer as devidas diferenças. A prova não quer saber dessas diferenças — e chego a temer que um aluno mais preparado e ousado, coitado!, possa quebrar a cara. Um ou outro poderiam desmoralizar a “teoria”, com o risco de ser desclassificado.
Na formulação da proposta, pede-se que o aluno trate do tema “formulando proposta de intervenção que respeite os direitos humanos”. Assim, exige-se do pobre que, além de defender e sustentar com argumentos uma tese estúpida, ainda se comporte como um verdadeiro formulador de políticas públicas ou, sei lá, um especialista em populações.
Essas duas exigências foram já incorporadas às provas de redação do Enem. Muito bem: digamos que um estudante seja contrário a que se concedam vistos a quaisquer pessoas que cheguem clandestinas ao Brasil, defendendo que sejam repatriadas. Esse aluno hipotético estaria apenas cobrando respeito à lei — pela qual deve zelar o Poder Público — o mesmo Poder Púbico que realiza a prova.
Digam-me cá: a repatriação de clandestinos é uma “intervenção aceitável”, ou o estudante está obrigado a concordar com o examinador, como há de ceder que, afinal, dois mais dois são quatro? A repatriação, no caso, seguindo os passos das leis democraticamente instituídas no Brasil, caracteriza um atentado aos direitos humanos? Até agora, o próprio governo federal não sabe o que fazer com os haitianos, e o Ministério Público do Trabalho não consegue coibir a exploração da mão de obra boliviana. Por que os estudantes teriam de ter para isso uma resposta?
Atenção! Eu nem estou aqui a defender isso ou aquilo. Noto apenas que a imigração ilegal divide opiniões no mundo inteiro e que é um absurdo, uma arrogância inaceitável, que se possa, depois de inventar uma tese, estabelecer qual é a opinião correta que se deve ter a respeito, exigindo ainda que os estudantes proponham “intervenções”, porém vigiados pelo “Tribunal dos Direitos Humanos”. Aí o bobinho esperneia: “Mas defender os direitos humanos não é um bem em si, um valor em si?”. Claro que é! Assim como ser favorável ao Bem, ao Belo e ao Justo. A questão é saber que tribunal decide quando “os direitos humanos” estão ou não a ser respeitados. Eu, por exemplo, considero que seguir leis democraticamente instituídas ou referendadas, segundo os fundamentos da dignidade humana (a integridade física e moral), é uma expressão eloquente dos… direitos humanos!
A prova é apenas macumbaria multiculturalista mal digerida — não que possa haver uma forma agradável de digeri-la, é bom deixar claro! As provas de redação do Enem — e de vários vestibulares — têm cobrado que os alunos sejam mais bonzinhos do que propriamente capazes.
Não por acaso, nas escolas e nos cursinhos, as aulas de redação têm-se convertido — sem prejuízo de o bom professor ensinar as técnicas da argumentação — numa coleção de dicas politicamente corretas para o aluno seduzir o examinador. Com mais um pouco de especialização, o pensamento será transformado numa fórmula ou numa variante do “emplastro anti-hipocondríaco”, de Brás Cubas (o de Machado de Assis), destinado “a aliviar a nossa pobre humanidade da melancolia”.
É o que têm feito os professores: um emplastro antipoliticamente incorreto, destinado a “aliviar os nossos pobres alunos da tentação de dizer o que eventualmente pensam”.
Isso, como todo mundo sabe, é o contrário da educação.
A partir de hoje, começo a escarafunchar as teses de especialistas brasileiros em geografia humana e populações em busca do “Movimento Migratório para o Brasil no século 21″ — nada menos. Segundo critérios estritamente intelectuais, essa prova de redação deveria ser simplesmente impugnada.
Sei que não é conforto para os alunos que fizeram a prova, mas escrevo mesmo assim: se vocês não tinham muito o que dizer a respeito, não fiquem preocupados — vocês foram convidados a falar sobre uma falácia, sobre o nada.

Mises Institute: The First 30 Years - Lew Rockwell

The First 30 Years of the Mises Institute
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. on November 5, 2012
[This talk was delivered at the 30th Anniversary Supporters Summit of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, on October 26, 2012.]

What a thrill to speak to you on this happy occasion of the Mises Institute's 30th anniversary. I am delighted that Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano have been able to join us for this wonderful celebration, along with our great Mises Institute faculty from universities all over the country, some of our excellent students, and some of the generous supporters who have made it all possible. My sincerest thanks to all of you.
Three decades ago, when I was contemplating the creation of a Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Austrian School of economics, and its Misesian branch in particular, were very much in decline. The number of Misesian economists was so small that all of them knew each other personally, and could probably have fit in Mises's small living room. This is a world that young people today, who find Austrian economics all over the place, can hardly imagine.
I wanted to do what I could to promote the Austrian School in general and the life and work of Mises in particular. Mises was a hero both as a scholar and as a man, and it was a shame that neither aspect of his life was being properly acknowledged.
I first approached Mises's widow, Margit, who was what Murray Rothbard called a "one-woman Mises industry." After her husband's death, she made sure his works stayed in print and continued to be translated into other languages. She agreed to be involved and to share her counsel as long as I pledged to dedicate the rest of my life to the Institute. I have kept that pledge. Margit von Mises became our first chairman. How lucky we were to have as her successor the great libertarian businessman Burt Blumert, who was also a wise advisor from the beginning.
When I told Murray Rothbard about the proposed institute, he literally clapped his hands with glee. He said he would do whatever was necessary to support it. He became our academic vice president and inspiration.
Ron Paul agreed to become our distinguished counselor, and was also a huge help in assembling our early funding, as well as an inspiration.
Murray would later say, "Without the founding of the Mises Institute, I am convinced the whole Misesian program would have collapsed." Of course, we can't know how things would have turned out had we made different choices. I simply wanted to do what I could, with the help of dear friends like Murray and Burt, to support the Austrian School during some very dark times, and I was prepared to let the chips fall where they may.
When I look back on all we've accomplished over the past 30 years, I can hardly believe it. Naturally we've promoted and kept in print works of Mises, the Nobel Prize–winning works of F.A. Hayek, and the indispensable catalogue of Murray Rothbard. Beyond that, we've made available to the world, free of charge, an enormous library of the most brilliant and important works ever written on Austrian economics and libertarian theory.
On our campus, the library and archives — based on the massive collections of Rothbard and Bob LeFevre's Freedom School — are incomparable. We have lecture halls, classrooms, student and faculty offices, student housing, a student center, a bookstore, and much more, all thanks to our magnificent donors.
Then there's the entire run of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics (which the Institute publishes), Murray Rothbard's Journal of Libertarian Studies, and the publications that he edited during the especially dark days of the 1960s and 1970s. Add to that many thousands of articles on every subject under the sun and thousands of hours of free audio and video from our seminars and other events, and you have a program of self-education that at one time would have required access to university libraries and a huge investment of time and money.
"Without the founding of the Mises Institute, I am convinced the whole Misesian program would have collapsed."
Murray N. Rothbard
The world now has access to all of this for free, thanks to you.
At Mises.org you can even hear recordings of Murray Rothbard teaching economics to engineering students at the former Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute. But instead of reaching a room of 30 people, Murray's audience is now worldwide. Justice has been done.
In fact, thanks to all these resources, the Mises Institute has become the intellectual foundation of the Ron Paul movement. When Ron inspired all those young kids to look into Austrian economics, they flocked to the Mises Institute. Here they found the knowledge that Ron had given them a thirst for: the pure, undiluted message of the Austrian School.
Of all the things we do, I'd like to make special note of three in particular.
Our Austrian Economics Research Conference brings together scholars working in the Austrian tradition from all over the world for what always turns out to be one of the intellectual events of the year.
Our Mises University summer program has trained thousands of students in the Austrian School — including scholars who will address you this weekend.
Finally, our summer-fellows program gives rising Austrian scholars the opportunity to do original research under the supervision of Institute faculty, and to give them a leg up in the job market.
And I can tell you this: the graduate students coming out of the Institute's programs today would have thrilled Murray Rothbard. These are some of the sharpest young scholars I have ever seen. You don't have to take my word for it. You'll be hearing about them in the coming months and years, as they make their inevitable impact on the world of ideas.
Mises was confident that the ideas he championed would triumph someday (if only because reality could not be postponed forever), but like Rothbard and so many other geniuses, he did not live to see his own vindication. Of course, that makes his courage all the more admirable. Spurned by the establishment and ignored by his peers, Mises made no effort to cater to them, nor to corrupt his message to advance his career.
And neither did Murray. The conservative movement spurned Rothbard for the same official reason it spurned Ron Paul. We love him on economics, they protested, but we can't stand his foreign policy.
As early as 1956, Murray was coming to believe that war was the critical and defining issue — "the key to the whole libertarian business," as he put it. His essay "War, Peace, and the State" provided a theoretical grounding for the libertarian position of nonintervention abroad.
But Murray went beyond theory and became a full-fledged revisionist historian of war. This, of course, was what doomed him in the modern conservative movement. Murray even rejected the US government's military interventions during the Cold War, which so many conservatives claimed was an exceptional case that required a massive global military presence. Bill Buckley even hailed a "totalitarian bureaucracy" in DC. This would all be scaled back when the communist menace was defeated, conservatives assured us. Sure it would, Murray said.
And in fact, with the Soviet archives now opened, Murray has been vindicated: the preposterous claims of Soviet capabilities and intentions find no support in the records, which show a Joseph Stalin who — far from looking for a fight — was still licking his wounds after losing 27 million lives in World War II, and presiding over a desperately poor economy.
Standing up against US foreign policy was just about the most unfashionable thing Murray could have done. He was a great economist, and if only he had shut his mouth on sensitive issues like these, he could have been the well-known and celebrated figure he deserved to be.
Instead, he followed his principles and his conscience, reached whatever audience cared to listen, and never felt sorry for himself. To the contrary, Murray was about the most cheerful ambassador the libertarian movement has ever had.
Henry Hazlitt once told me that the greatest thing I'd ever done was to give Rothbard the platform he deserved, by creating the Mises Institute. Now Murray could reach an audience that vastly exceeded anything he had been able to garner in the past. And thanks to our fellowship programs, he could even, at long last, advise graduate students.
So many of us wish Murray could have lived to see both the Internet revolution as well as the victories of the past few years in particular.
We can only dream of what the ongoing Austrian rebirth would have meant in practical terms for Murray. Students today are reading him to a far greater extent than ever before. A genius who once edited newsletters that reached a handful of people would today be addressing packed lecture halls all over the country and the world, and starring on the Internet.
And I feel sure the excitement of instantaneous commentary on current events would finally have pushed Murray, who used only a typewriter to write his books, into the world of computers and technology. Everyone in the libertarian world — friend and foe alike — would have read his commentary every day, and non-libertarians would have been drawn to him as well.
It was not to be. But these extraordinary men paved the way for the intellectual triumphs of which the experiences of the past few years are only a taste.
Mises Institutes have been formed — spontaneously, without any direction from us — in countries all over the world, including Brazil, Poland, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Russia, Italy, Estonia, Ecuador, Finland, Israel, Portugal, Ukraine, Romania, Sweden, Belgium, Colombia, South Africa, the Czech Republic, Latvia, and Slovakia.
We have accomplished all these things without a billionaire and without an obsessive eye to mainstream respectability. We have achieved them thanks to you, and thanks to a faculty and staff dedicated to the cause of truth.



The works of Rothbard and Mises, and the contributions of the other greats of the Austrian School, are the patrimony we have been fortunate to inherit. But that patrimony carries with it a tremendous moral responsibility.
We have flourished for these 30 years thanks to your help. But this is truly a critical moment in the history of the Austrian School. Thanks to Ron Paul, more young people than ever are interested in this venerable tradition of thought. More of them than ever are skeptical of what their professors are teaching them. And more of them than ever want to absorb everything they can of the Austrian School, even to the point of becoming teachers and professors themselves.
Will we be able to help this huge cohort of budding Austrians? Will the renewed interest in Austrian economics continue and strengthen, or diminish and fizzle out?
These are questions we have to answer together.
A tremendous opportunity, greater than anything I have seen in my lifetime, lies in our hands. Many of the brightest young kids are committed to the world that Mises and Rothbard worked so courageously and without fanfare to bring about.
We have already witnessed so many early victories. Help us build on them, and make the dream of these men a reality.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is chairman and CEO of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of The Left, the Right, and the State. Send him mail. See Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.'s article archives.

The Permanent Militarization of America - Aaron B. O’Connell


OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

The Permanent Militarization of America

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
Annapolis, Md.
Opinion Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.
IN 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhowerleft office warning of the growing power of the military-industrial complex in American life. Most people know the term the president popularized, but few remember his argument.
In his farewell address, Eisenhower called for a better equilibrium between military and domestic affairs in our economy, politics and culture. He worried that the defense industry’s search for profits would warp foreign policy and, conversely, that too much state control of the private sector would cause economic stagnation. He warned that unending preparations for war were incongruous with the nation’s history. He cautioned that war and warmaking took up too large a proportion of national life, with grave ramifications for our spiritual health.
The military-industrial complex has not emerged in quite the way Eisenhower envisioned. The United States spends an enormous sum on defense — over $700 billion last year, about half of all military spending in the world — but in terms of our total economy, it has steadily declined to less than 5 percent of gross domestic product from 14 percent in 1953. Defense-related research has not produced an ossified garrison state; in fact, it has yielded a host of beneficial technologies, from the Internet to civilian nuclear power to GPS navigation. The United States has an enormous armaments industry, but it has not hampered employment and economic growth. In fact, Congress’s favorite argument against reducing defense spending is the job loss such cuts would entail.
Nor has the private sector infected foreign policy in the way that Eisenhower warned. Foreign policy has become increasingly reliant on military solutions since World War II, but we are a long way from the Marines’ repeated occupations of Haiti, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic in the early 20th century, when commercial interests influenced military action. Of all the criticisms of the 2003 Iraq war, the idea that it was done to somehow magically decrease the cost of oil is the least credible. Though it’s true that mercenaries and contractors have exploited the wars of the past decade, hard decisions about the use of military force are made today much as they were in Eisenhower’s day: by the president, advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council, and then more or less rubber-stamped by Congress. Corporations do not get a vote, at least not yet.
But Eisenhower’s least heeded warning — concerning the spiritual effects of permanent preparations for war — is more important now than ever. Our culture has militarized considerably since Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause. From lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas. Of course, veterans should be thanked for serving their country, as should police officers, emergency workers and teachers. But no institution — particularly one financed by the taxpayers — should be immune from thoughtful criticism.
Like all institutions, the military works to enhance its public image, but this is just one element of militarization. Most of the political discourse on military matters comes from civilians, who are more vocal about “supporting our troops” than the troops themselves. It doesn’t help that there are fewer veterans in Congress today than at any previous point since World War II. Those who have served are less likely to offer unvarnished praise for the military, for it, like all institutions, has its own frustrations and failings. But for non-veterans — including about four-fifths of all members of Congress — there is only unequivocal, unhesitating adulation. The political costs of anything else are just too high.
For proof of this phenomenon, one need look no further than the continuing furor over sequestration — the automatic cuts, evenly divided between Pentagon and nonsecurity spending, that will go into effect in January if a deal on the debt and deficits isn’t reached. As Bob Woodward’s latest book reveals, the Obama administration devised the measure last year to include across-the-board defense cuts because it believed that slashing defense was so unthinkable that it would make compromise inevitable.
But after a grand budget deal collapsed, in large part because of resistance from House Republicans, both parties reframed sequestration as an attack on the troops (even though it has provisions that would protect military pay). The fact that sequestration would also devastate education, health and programs for children has not had the same impact.
Eisenhower understood the trade-offs between guns and butter. “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed,” he warned in 1953, early in his presidency. “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.”
He also knew that Congress was a big part of the problem. (In earlier drafts, he referred to the “military-industrial-Congressional” complex, but decided against alienating the legislature in his last days in office.) Today, there are just a select few in public life who are willing to question the military or its spending, and those who do — from the libertarian Ron Paul to the leftist Dennis J. Kucinich — are dismissed as unrealistic.
The fact that both President Obama and Mitt Romney are calling for increases to the defense budget (in the latter case, above what the military has asked for) is further proof that the military is the true “third rail” of American politics. In this strange universe where those without military credentials can’t endorse defense cuts, it took a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen, to make the obvious point that the nation’s ballooning debt was the biggest threat to national security.
Uncritical support of all things martial is quickly becoming the new normal for our youth. Hardly any of my students at the Naval Academy remember a time when their nation wasn’t at war. Almost all think it ordinary to hear of drone strikes in Yemen or Taliban attacks in Afghanistan. The recent revelation of counterterrorism bases in Africa elicits no surprise in them, nor do the military ceremonies that are now regular features at sporting events. That which is left unexamined eventually becomes invisible, and as a result, few Americans today are giving sufficient consideration to the full range of violent activities the government undertakes in their names.
Were Eisenhower alive, he’d be aghast at our debt, deficits and still expanding military-industrial complex. And he would certainly be critical of the “insidious penetration of our minds” by video game companies and television networks, the news media and the partisan pundits. With so little knowledge of what Eisenhower called the “lingering sadness of war” and the “certain agony of the battlefield,” they have done as much as anyone to turn the hard work of national security into the crass business of politics and entertainment.
Aaron B. O’Connell, an assistant professor of history at the United States Naval Academy and a Marine reserve officer, is the author of “Underdogs: The Making of the Modern Marine Corps.”