Those advocating militarism still applaud excessive force even though it often accomplishes little as an actual game changer in confrontational challenges to America’s global self-interests. Excessive is by definition beyond the necessary. What is the practical advantage of having the capacity to destroy one’s enemies hundreds of times over? Brandishing such overkill capability has hardly achieved much in deterring enemies or facilitating co-existence.

One might argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inarguable game changers, but fulfilling that nightmarish endgame’s wish conjured a moral fallout we still haven’t found a way of getting back into the genie’s bottle.

Such “shock and awe” didn’t quite take in Iraq. Rather than bringing about a quick demoralization and surrender, it gave birth to a shape-shifting spectre of increasing strength enlarging into a boundless Islamic State whose e-recruited radicalized terror has reached all the way to San Bernardino.

Our insanely massive nuclear prowess can’t protect us against the next 911’s ever growing possibility of a low-tech “dirty” bomb being employed, and boastful suggestions of turning Iran into a mushroom cloud will likely only hasten such attacks.

Too many still think that overwhelming military might will somehow keep us safe and that forcing our military presence upon the world wins over hearts and minds to our version of reality. We now have so many military bases around the planet that Google can’t provide a definitive count, variously reporting between 600 and 1,000. The Defense Department’s budget accountability would seem to have a comfortable amount of wiggle room.

Sadly, the most commanding hearts and minds remain those seeking control of the world economy and financial markets, and all remaining or discovered natural resources. The more our economy is tied to a Global economy the more dependent we are on global corporate interests and their use of military might as a way of leveraging their dominance.

Then there is the unacknowledged reality of that worldwide military presence being a commodity itself.

Boots on the ground means boots that are made and purchased, and purchased at a politically brokered price unfettered by any real market competition. Better still are spare-no-expense, state-of-the-art weapons excessively deployed and in need of perpetual replacement. For some, patriotism’s bottom line is more about the profits made by armament manufacture and sales than about securing a less lucrative peace. War is expensive, and war profiteering is not an exaggerated accusation but a very real day-to-day, year-to-year, decade-to-decade corporate reality.

Without ongoing military engagement somewhere all the time, and constant upgrading of our already vastly superior capabilities, a vital segment of our domestic economy would take a major hit.

The going price of a Zumwaltclass destroyer is roughly 4 billion dollars. Maine relies heavily on the paychecks such military procurement provides. The definition of military “readiness,” however, should be all about reasonable defense preparation rather than economically driven militaristic enthusiasm. The infamous “military industrial complex” is a complex vested interest providing trickle-down economics buoying many local economies because it can’t readily be outsourced overseas.

Obama has done a fairly good job of keeping those who doggedly advocate armed conflict on a fairly short leash. Vowing that if elected he would not lead America into “stupid” wars, he has nevertheless found it a Herculean effort to lead us completely out of those he inherited.

He, like Bernie Sanders, understood the danger of entering into the debacle of Iraq. Yet, once in office he, perhaps reluctantly, by compromise, chose someone who failed that judgment test to be his Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton still thinks an aggressive military-backed foreign policy is a workable solution to international disharmony even though our track record of wishful interventionism continues to destabilize the Mideast. ISIS is our ill-considered reward for wanting other people’s resources so that we can continue a domestic policy that ignores our ongoing role in planetary environmental destruction.

Obama, and our nation, have been far better served by John Kerry’s more intelligent flexing of America’s muscle. His personal experience of the Vietnam War’s utterly misguided hegemonic experiment seems to have equipped him with a lasting life lesson.

Would-be commander in chief Trump suggests that Japan should now have its own, hopefully grudge-free, nuclear weapons. Ted Cruz passionately recommends bombing the Near East sufficiently enough until we “know if sand can glow in the dark.”

Sanders has no qualms about employing our military might judiciously, promising to use necessary force only for vital interests and not towards forcibly extending America’s influence for the sake of greed.

“We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet. We never went to war.” Jimmy Carter’s ownership of those words will eventually be recognized for his profound stewardship and moral fortitude, for which he was summarily rejected and booted from office.

Americans want their president to read the Bible selectively and the Koran not at all, and to continue ruling by the mightiest sword possible regardless of its livability.

Hillary, Trump and Cruz shrewdly play to that captive audience, well knowing that encouraging such rote patriotism isn’t leadership but just shameless tactical pandering.

———

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.