are beating once again, with US bombers already over Iraq (and soon Syria) to, in President Barack Obama's words, “degrade and destroy ISIS.” The Republican Party, led by war-at-any-cost senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain, wants a bigger military buildup, which can only mean US soldiers on the ground. Here they go again. Another result of former US president George W. Bush's war in Iraq. Washington has already expended thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of American injuries and illnesses, and over a million Iraqi lives. The achievement: the slaying or capture of Al-Qaeda leaders, but with that came the spread of Al-Qaeda into a dozen countries and the emergence of a new Al-Qaeda on steroids called the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS), or Islamic State (IS) group, that has nominal control over an area in Syria and Iraq larger than the territory of Great Britain. Still no lessons have been learned. The US continues to attack countries and side with one sectarian group against another, which only creates chaos and sets in motion a cycle of revenge and sparks new internal strife. So if slamming a hornet's nest propels more hornets to start new nests, isn't it time to rethink this militarisation of US foreign policy? It only increases the violent chaos in the Middle East region with the risk of a blow-back affecting the US, such as suicide bombers attacking heavily populated public spaces. This kind of attack is very hard to stop, as has been seen thousands of times overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Richard Clarke, former White House anti-terrorism advisor to George W. Bush, former Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden wanted Bush to invade Iraq so that more Muslims would take up arms against the US and more Muslims would hate the country for its destruction of their land and people. Similarly, IS would like nothing better than to embroil the US and its soldiers in a ground war so that it can rally more people to expel the giant US invader. Then there is the massive over-reaction by the US government and its ever-willing corporate contractors. Political turmoil ensues and US democratic institutions, already weakened in their defence of liberty, due process, and the rule of law, are further overwhelmed by the policing dictates of a profitable national security state. Commentator Randolph Bourne, a hundred years ago, wrote an essay with these words about war: “It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense … Other values such as artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life, are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed.” Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers, also understood this collective panic when he said that people who prefer security to liberty deserve neither. The fundamental question is whether US civil society can defend the institutions critical to maintaining a democratic society. Will the courts fold before the over-reaching panic by the executive branch and its armed forces? Will the congress and state legislatures stand firm against sacrificing liberty and public budgets that serve civil society necessities in the face of a police/military state's over-reacting ultimatums? Will the media resist focusing on the “war on terror” and report other important news about American life? Will the government pay more attention to preventing the yearly loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives from hospital infections, medical malpractice, defective products, air pollution, unsafe drugs, toxic workplaces and other domestic perils? Not likely. The aftermath of the 9/11 atrocities resulted in brutal reaction. In devastating two countries and their civilians, far more American soldiers were injured and killed than the lives lost on 9/11, not to mention the trillions of dollars that could have been spent to save many lives and repair, with well-paying jobs, the crumbling public works in US communities. Sadly, US democratic institutions and civil resiliency are not presently prepared to hold fast with the forces of reason, prudence and smart responses that could forestall a national nervous breakdown — one that happens to be very profitable and power-concentrating for the few against the many. Consider what the country's leaders did to US democracy during their “war on terror.” Secret laws, secret courts, secret evidence, secret dragnet snooping on everyone, massive secret spending for military quagmires abroad, secret prisons and even censored judicial decisions that are supposed to be fully disclosed. Government prosecutors have often made a shambles of their duty to show probable cause or respect habeas corpus and other constitutional rights. Thousands of innocent people were jailed without charge and detained without attorneys after 9/11. Al-Qaeda leaders wanted not only to instill fear about public safety in America, but also to weaken the country economically by tying it down overseas. Why are the country's rulers obliging them? Because, in a grotesque way, power in Washington and profit on Wall Street benefit. Only the people, who do not benefit from these wars, can organise the exercising of their constitutional sovereignty to shape responses that promote safety without damaging liberty. One per cent of the citizenry, diversely organised in congressional districts and reflecting public sentiment, could turn around, perhaps with the support of an enlightened billionaire or two, Congress and the White House. Are you up to the challenge? The writer is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us.
