Minnesota Delegation Travels to Croatia

by Mary Shepard, WAMM

On September 16, 2000, a delegation traveled from Minnesota to Croatia under the auspices of the National Guard and with the blessing of the State Department. A brief report on Minnesota Public Radio was the only notice we had of this mission. The report suggested that one of the purposes of the trip was to exchange information between the National Guard and their military about the efficacy of integrating the military and the police in times of civil disorder.

There have been many articles lately in our papers about the necessity for beefing up the National Guard and widening its responsibilities. Perhaps that is because citizen soldiers with full-time civilian jobs can supplement the small salaries the Pentagon pays its service men and women. Increased use of citizen soldiers may free funding for the new weapon systems the Pentagon is developing.

In the past, Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) tried to restrain the use of "citizen soldiers" for adventures abroad when the Minnesota Guard was sent to Panama. In its "peacekeeping mission" at that time, the Pentagon conducted bombing runs which were killing innocent civilians who were no threat to Minnesotans.

The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the National Guard was no longer answerable to the governor of the state once it left our shores. This seems to many a stunning repudiation of the constitutional purpose of the Guard.

Wanting to find out more about the mission to Croatia, several WAMM members tried to reach Mae Schunk, our lieutenant governor, who was the top civilian in the delegation. Letters and phone calls were never answered and we were finally instructed to talk to Lt. Col. Denny Shields, the public-relations officer of the Minnesota National Guard. He gave us an hour's interview, during which it became clear that, while the Minnesota delegation to Croatia may create some opportunities for cultural exchanges between educators and perhaps some business contacts that would be useful for nothern Minnesota's Iron Range, the largest component of the delegation was military.

It appears to some WAMM members that this mission is a small manifestation, here in Minnesota, of a dramatic shift in Pentagon policy. Once the Cold War was over, the role of the military had to be revised. With no Soviet threat, new missions had to be created and new configurations of our forces would have to be arranged. Demobilization was not seriously considered.

With the willing assistance of corporate and banking interests (who are anxious to keep stability in the areas they are exploiting for natural resources and cheap labor), our armed forces are being broken up into smaller, more mobile units which can be put in place quickly in response to threatened unrest. They are being supplemented by private mercenary armies either created by retired Pentagon personnel or corporations themselves. Wherever possible, they collaborate with local military and police units (e.g. in Indonesia and Colombia).

For a model of this strategy, think back to the British Empire. India was occupied and ruled in much the same way. Britain was frank in saying it was "the white man's burden" to bring enlightenment to the backward nations. The nation proudly planted the Union Jack wherever it went and boasted that "the sun never set" on the British Empire. The Queen was installed as Empress of India. Sikhs and other minorities were recruited as mercenaries. There was no attempt to cloak this chauvinism. Britain claimed it was entitled to rule because of innate superiority.

But U.S. history and culture are founded on "anti-imperialism" . Our leaders sometimes explain that the role of world policeman has been thrust upon an unwilling U.S. Generally our interventions are excused with claims about our national interest or humanitarian reasons. The hidden agenda of our empire, however, is no different than any other in history. Only the hypocrisy has reached new dimensions.

The invasion and occupation of Yugoslavia is a case in point. This was unconstitutional in that the people of the U.S. (through our representatives in Congress) were not consulted. We asked our National Guard informant if this disturbed him. He replied that we were asking him a policy question he was not qualified to answer. Like a good soldier he said he must follow orders (which is exactly why we had wanted to talk to a civilian).

Not since W.W. II has the U.S. electorate, through their Congress, been asked to decide questions of war and peace. The administrative branch's strategy has been for the president to commit the troops and later give the legislative branch the responsibility to fund or deny funds to the Pentagon (thus leaving "our boys" either weaponless or to suffer the shame of having to return home with nothing to show for the mobilization).

Recently, on National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation," three "experts," two of whom represented the two leading presidential candidates, discussed when they thought the president should, or would, send troops abroad. In the ensuing hour no one mentioned the need to consult Congress. It seems it is now accepted that in foreign policy the Constitution does not apply.

When does peace keeping become war making? When does policing become occupying? Lt. Col. Shields did not have the answers. More ominously, we are seeing the same willingness to use the military to contain the unrest here at home (see "Green Label, Dangerous Ingredients" on page 4). Croatia has had a lot of practice in this regard.

If social unrest is the new threat to justify a bloated Pentagon, and if constitutional considerations are to be ignored, we can be sure we too will be victims at home. The disparity of wealth between rich and poor has explosive implications. Eventually Lt. Col. Shields and his colleagues may have to choose between obeying their commander in chief or defending their nation's constitution.