06/11/09 – Ben Manski – The Scott Horton Show

Alright y'all, welcome back to the show, it's Anti-War Radio on Chaos 95.9 FM in Austin, Texas.
We're also streaming live worldwide on the internet at chaosradioaustin.org and at antiwar.com slash radio.
And our next guest on the show today is Ben Manske from Bring the Guard Home, and that's bringtheguardhome.org.
Welcome to the show, Ben, how are you?
I'm doing well, thanks for having me.
Well, I really appreciate you joining me, especially on such short notice here.
So I guess before we talk about the whole campaign here, I'm interested in how you got involved in it.
Well, this campaign is something that has started small.
It started with a state legislator in the state of Vermont, where a lot of good things start.
His name is Michael Fisher, he hails from the township of Lincoln, and he had been the author of a resolution that the Vermont Assembly had adopted opposing the war on Iraq.
And after having authored that and having succeeded in putting Vermont on the map as an anti-war state, he looked around and he said, you know, Congress is still not listening, they haven't listened to the millions in the streets, they haven't listened to the millions who elected them, and they're not ending this war.
What can I do as a state legislator, what can I do in my state to have a real impact?
The natural direction in which he looked was to the Vermont State National Guard.
And he asked a friend of his, Benson Scotch, who was the Executive Director of the ACLU in Vermont, to help him come up with some legislation.
I heard about this in January of last year, 2008, and connected with Benson Scotch and with Michael Fisher, and since that time we've had a lot of people join us in this campaign.
It started in Vermont, we're now operating in 24 states.
There were some legislating efforts in your state of Texas that are underway, and in 13 of those states, we have had legislation introduced that either directs the governor to refuse unlawful guard federalization orders, or which amends state statute to make very explicit the governor's authority to do that.
Alright, well now, I want to parse all that legal stuff in a minute here, but I guess first I want to get to the basic premise of the Guard.
I mean, the way I remember it being pitched to me when I was a kid was, ah, you go two weekends a month, I think it is, two weeks a year, and if there's a flood, you'll help with some sandbags, if the firemen need backup, you'll go and help with that.
And yeah, you kind of dress like an army guy, but you stay home, and you don't walk around killing people, you help people.
And instead, what's happened is our Guard has been basically used as the reserve for the Empire.
That's right, and imagine that, an actual National Defense Force, a force that's actually here to defend the United States from invasion, a force that's actually here to help people in times of emergency.
That is what the National Guard is still being sold as, but as you said, that's not the reality.
Three successive Secretaries of Defense have made very clear that without the deployment of the National Guard to Iraq and Afghanistan, those invasions and occupations would have been impossible.
They've relied on the Guard in a big way.
We've seen over 700,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves sent over there.
God, are you kidding?
700,000, huh?
700,000.
It's immense.
And the reality is that they're not serving just in support positions anymore like they were in the 90s.
The first time we really started to see the National Guard used in this very explicitly offensive capacity.
But, you know, that selling point about being a weekend warrior, being somebody who's going to defend America and sort of be the good guy, that comes out of American history.
That is the historic role of the National Guard, and the reality is that until the last century, the U.S. did not have large standing armies.
We certainly didn't have an Air Force.
Our Navy was just being built up in a big way, and the way in which you served in national defense was to join your state militia, i.e., the modern National Guard.
So the National Guard would outnumber the Army by a factor of between 7 and 20, depending on the time.
And what happened was the wealthy and the powerful, at the beginning of the 20th century, they wanted to develop American imperialism.
They wanted to kick Spain out and take over their colonies.
And they said, this militia system is an obstacle to us, because when we call up these state militia units and we deploy these people overseas, they're not very interested in doing that.
They're not interested in leaving their farms, their families, their work behind, their communities behind.
They're not interested in taking away other people's freedom.
And so we need to restructure the militia.
We need to essentially demolish state authority.
And we need to create the basis for U.S. imperialism, and that's exactly what they did.
So that is, in part, what this campaign is about.
We're not taking on the entire course of the 20th century in this single campaign and bring the Guard home.org.
But we're beginning that process with this legislation.
Well, and you know, it's funny, when you describe the evolution there, it reminds me of Garrett Garrett's pamphlet, The Rise of Empire, where he talks about one of the hallmarks of empire is that foreign policy dominates and reigns superior over domestic policy.
All domestic policies must bend to the needs of the national security state, basically.
And that was just the very beginning of that, and it was a hundred years ago.
That's right.
And also, let's be clear that those who launched the revolution, who fought it, who consolidated what they could of it, who fought back against attempts to take away the gains of the American Revolution, the true revolutionaries, they knew that that was the case.
They knew that what you just said is the case, because they had personal experience with that.
And so when they established the new country, they were very clear that the United States was not to be like those other nations of Europe, that there was a kind of a positive American exceptionalism that was there.
And so that is why we have the militia system.
It's why we have the National Guard today.
It's why there's very explicit language in our Constitution about the militia that you would think, if you read it, it's clear on its face that basically Congress has the power to call out the militia, or to authorize the president to call out the militia, to respond to one of three different kinds of emergencies, either to respond to an invasion, to suppress an insurrection, or to enforce the law of the United States in the situation in which that law is not being enforced, right?
And clearly, they were not intending for the militia to be sent over into Canada.
And when during that war, in the War of 1812, they tried to send the militia over, the New England militias refused, they didn't even try to send the militias over into Mexico during the Mexican-American War.
And you know, that system was designed that way on purpose.
They knew that empire was a deadly foe.
And so there you have the, of course, it's the national government that has a monopoly on foreign policy.
The states can't have their own foreign policy.
And then even it's the president who dominates when it comes to foreign affairs within the national government.
So we see the rise of the presidency all throughout this same time, as we see, basically, what you're describing is the death of any pretense that America really is a federal republic at all.
It is a single nation state, it has been.
Well, I, you know, I wouldn't go that far, I'd say that's certainly been their agenda, and they've been very successful in pushing it, but it's not, they've not entirely accomplished their goal.
I think the fact that we can move this legislation in state legislatures, we actually now have the votes in the lower chamber of the Oregon legislature to pass the legislation that we're pushing says something significant.
And I also, I'm starting to see a move back towards progressive federalism.
Well, I mean, that would still just be symbolic though, wouldn't it?
I mean, these, Barack Obama is going to say, no, I have the supremacy clause and you can't have your guard home.
You can protest all you want, but the state governors don't really have the ability to enforce any of these resolutions, do they?
Well, I think they absolutely do, and in fact, one of the reasons why we moved from resolutions originally and into statutory amendments was to make this a matter of standing law.
So let's get into parsing some of the legal specifics of the legislation.
Yeah, because what we're doing here is partially about getting the states to reassert some responsibility for their National Guard units, and the reality is we do still have a dual enlistment system, and the law is still the law of the land until a Supreme Court says otherwise, and they haven't actually on some of these questions that we're raising here.
And then, but the other part of this campaign is designed to challenge what you described earlier, the growing power of the executive branch, the way in which the presidential suite has seized authority from Congress, especially in the area of war powers.
And what we're saying is it's the duty of the governor to take a look at every federalization order that comes down from the Department of Defense, every order that President issues or that's issued in his name, calling a National Guard unit into federal service, the National Service, and to make sure that there's a lawful basis for that order.
Because what has been happening in the case of the Iraq War in particular is that when Congress passed the 2002 authorization for the use of military force, they set a very clearly limited mission.
They said that your mission, U.S. Armed Forces, is to remove Saddam Hussein from power, eliminate the threat of WMDs, and to enforce the U.N.
Security Council resolutions that dated back from the first Iraq War, from the Persian Gulf War.
Well, you know, I think it's pretty clear, if you look at it from any objective standpoint, that's not accomplished if there ever was a mission in the first place.
In the case of WMDs, Hussein's no longer in power, there never were any WMDs, those U.N.
Security Council resolutions are no longer enforced, they're no longer relevant.
And so what the president has been doing, first President Bush and now President Obama, has been acting without congressional authorization.
And so it's a very sort of common sense idea that we're pushing, that the governor should make sure that there is a lawful basis for that order.
And in doing that, we're actually strengthening the hand of Congress.
We're actually getting their back.
Because there are a number of flaws in the written Constitution, certainly in its text, but one of them is that it only takes 50 percent plus one to authorize a military action or a war.
But of course, it takes two-thirds to override a veto.
So when we saw the movement going ahead in Congress, when they actually did start to do the right thing, to set a timetable for withdrawal, they had to deal with the reality that they couldn't muster a two-thirds vote to override a threatened veto.
And that is a significant problem.
So at least in terms of the National Guard, the states can play a role here.
We might not be able to stop the Marines from going over, or the Navy, but we can at least take a look at the National Guard and ensure that the president is not overstepping his or her authority.
I think this might especially be important right now when so much of the anti-war movement has been bought off by the bringing of hope and change to Washington, D.C., and have decided to let, I guess, wait until 2012 to see if Barack Obama breaks his promise to get us out of Iraq before they bother being anti-war again.
And it seems like this is the kind of thing that at the very least can cause a real discussion on the nightly news and get people fired up here.
I know that there are a lot of soldiers who know what's going on, whether they're Guard soldiers or Marines or Army or whatever, who know that this is all ridiculous, not ridiculous but horrible, that America started this war, that what they're doing there is, as they would put it, BS, and that they ought to be home now.
And they have moms and dads who have got to be coming out to support you, right?
This isn't just made up of left-wing Quakers or hippies or something like that.
This has got to be this Bring the Guard Home website and movement that you guys have going on.
These are family members of guys who are stuck over there who want them home safe and sound ASAP.
Am I right?
No, you're absolutely right.
You know, I'm a lawyer, and don't hold that against me, but this is not just a movement of left-wing lawyers or right-wing lawyers.
It is a very broad movement.
Politically speaking, we've attracted support from Republicans in several states.
In Oregon, we actually have nine Republicans in the legislature who are sponsors and supporting the legislation there.
We have the Libertarian Party in various states, which has come on board, the Green Party.
We have Democratic Party locals, and actually this weekend, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin will be voting on endorsing the campaign.
So you have a multi-party coalition around this legislation that's made up of people who share the same concern about empire, the same concern about federal power, the same concern about democracy.
And then, of course, the campaign is driven forward, as you say, by veterans, by military families, by members of the National Guard, and that has really been front and center and really key in the development of this campaign, because these are people who really understand how the military works and understand how it needs to change.
And in terms of the organization that I work for, I've been coordinating this campaign, but I work for an organization called Liberty Tree, and our job is to help build a democracy movement in the United States.
And so we see this campaign as being essential to taking on building democracy in one of the most essential areas, which is matters of warranty, to democratize defense, to change defense policy.
And the way you do that is by building a movement of people from below in our state to do that.
And so that is powerful, regardless of whether a Bush or an Obama or even a Nader or a McKinney or a Ron Paul is in the White House, it's essential that at the state level that we make some progress, and that's what we're doing here.
Yeah, well, you know, I'm a big believer, at least in the need, if not, you know, any real success along these lines that I can cite, but I certainly am a big believer in the need for a new realignment in this country where the best of the left and the right can find themselves closer allies than the worst of the left and the right that they seem perpetually stuck with.
And we always have the most vicious extremists go by the name moderate in the center.
You know, who's a centrist in our political system, John McCain and Joe Lieberman?
They're not moderate at all.
That's where the extremist lies, where the worst bipartisanship of the left and the right comes together.
And we really need broad based movements of people who realize that, you know, regardless of country and rock and roll and how you dress and and religious values and stuff like that, that those of us who care about having a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, who care about having, you know, peace sometime in our lifetime, you know, really need to get together, put aside our differences and put first things first, you know?
That's right.
That's right.
What about resistors?
Tell me about, you know, guardsmen who come to you saying, hey, I don't want to go back, but they're going to prosecute me.
What do I do?
Well, to be clear, the Bring the Guard Home campaign is very focused on the state by state legislative approach, but there are certainly other organizations out there and other campaigns that are really worthwhile.
And, you know, I think probably a lot of your listeners know about groups like Courage to Resist, and you can Google them.
You can look up Iraq Vets Against the War, it's just IVAW.org, both of those organizations are involved with the Bring the Guard Home campaign, but they are going to be more helpful to you.
There's the War Resistors League.
There's plenty of resources out there.
And one thing we're doing with the Bring the Guard Home campaign is that in addition to focusing on this legislation, we are working to link up with some of these other efforts that really do strengthen individual rights, that strengthen democracy around issues of war and peace.
And we're organizing a national conference in Washington, D.C. for the weekend before the anniversary of the Afghanistan War.
It'll be October 2nd and 3rd in Washington on War Powers, Law, and Democracy.
So anybody who might be heading out there, you know, for those protests would invite you to come a couple days early and go to bringtheguardhome.org and we'll have information about that conference up on our website in the next week.
And then of course, you know, you don't, these days you don't have to go in person.
You can see the video, you can read all about it, and we do have a ton of resources on our website as well as links to groups like Courage to Resist and IVAW.
Right on.
Well, and I hope you'll stay in contact with us at antiwar.com about that as the date approaches, and hopefully we can help promote it at least a little bit on this show.
Yeah, absolutely.
We'll do that.
All right, everybody, that's Ben Manske from bringtheguardhome.org.
Thanks very much for your time on the show today.
Yeah, thanks, Scott.