GOP Brownshirts

[Chris Alger]

Someone posted a transcript of a debate between Senatorial candidates Barak Obama and Alan Keyes the illuminates the most important issue in American politics, one that will likely determine the survival of American democracy, yet one that is rarely discussed. It's found in Keyes's description of an event that has killed several times as many innocent civilians than perished on 9/11, with more dead daily:

[ QUOTE ]
ANDERSON: Ambassador Keyes, the U.S. has armed forces in Iraq. How long will they stay there, and when should they get out, and how should we get them out?

ALAN KEYES: I think they stay there until they get the job done. I know that John Kerry is preoccupied with an exit strategy, but as I've been telling folks lately, if you get into a battle and the only thing you're thinking about is how to get out, I think we have a word for you--and it's not very complimentary.

We are engaged in a war . . .

MODERATOR: What is the word?

KEYES: We are engaged in a war against terror that was started by the terrorists, that claimed the lives of thousands of Americans, that involves a global infrastructure of insidious individuals. We have seen the work they do, in Russia and elsewhere, against innocent lives in the most bestial fashion possible.To fight that war, as I learned in my experience when I was on the National Security Council staff working directly on the problem of terrorism, it is not sufficient to have rhetoric, it is not sufficient to react after the fact. You have got to preemptively move against their bases, against their sources of supply, against their training camps, against the states the provide them with safe haven and infrastructure. If you do not, then they will simply prepare for further attacks.

And in a world where we have weapons of mass destruction, it's not good enough to say that, "Well, if there's a 50% chance that they could use them, I will act"--because once one such attack succeeds, we could end up losing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note: the war in Iraq was "started by terrorists." I agree, but I doubt that Keyes and I mean the same thing.

Anyway, the unexamined issue is: HOW THE HELL CAN ANY PARTY THAT PURPORTS TO BELIEVE IN THE INFORMED CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED SUPPORT A DEMOGOGUE FOR MASS KILLING LIKE ALAN KEYES?

The answer, of course, is that the mass media in the U.S. doesn't do what it's supposed to but does do what it shouldn't. As a result, not since Germany in the 1930's has such a huge population of a modern society been so utterly deluded about the nature of the troubles they face. This point was again made in Paul Craig Roberts' recent article The Brownshirting of America (http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10152004.html):

[David] Brock makes a credible case that today's conservatives are driven by ideology, not by fact. He argues that their stock in trade is denunciation, not debate. Conservatives don't assess opponents' arguments, they demonize opponents. Truth and falsity are out of the picture; the criteria are: who's good, who's evil, who's patriotic, who's unpatriotic.

These are the traits of brownshirts. Brownshirts know they are right. They know their opponents are wrong and regard them as enemies who must be silenced if not exterminated.

Some of Brock's quotes from prominent conservative commentators will curl your toes. His description of the rightwing's destruction of an independent media and the "Fairness Doctrine" explain why a recent CNN/Gallup poll found that 42% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 terrorist attack on the US and 32% believe that Saddam Hussein personally planned the attack.

A country in which 42% of the population is totally misinformed is not a country where democracy is safe.

Today there is no one to correct a lie once it is told. The media, thanks to Republicans, has been concentrated in few hands, and they are not the hands of newsmen. Corporate values rule. If lies sell, sell them. If listeners, viewers, and readers want confirmation of their resentments and beliefs, give it to them. Objectivity turns listeners off and is a money loser.

In his book, Cruel and Unusual, Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, explains how rightwing influence has moved the media away from reporting news to designing our consciousness. "The Age of Information," Miller writes, "has turned out to be an Age of Ignorance."

Miller makes a strong case. His description of how CNN and Fox News destroyed the credibility of Scott Ritter, the leading expert on Iraq's weapons, reveals a media completely given over to propaganda. Ritter stood in the way of the neocon's invasion of Iraq.

CNN's Miles O'Brien, Eason Jordan, Catherine Callaway, Paula Zahn, Kyra Phillips, Arthel Neville, and Fox News' David Asman and John Gibson portrayed Ritter as a disloyal American, a Ba-athist stooge on the take from Saddam Hussein, and compared him to Jane Fonda in North Vietnam.

With this, the rightwing talk radio crazies were off and running. Anyone with the slightest bit of real information about the state of weapons development in Iraq was dismissed as a foreign agent who should be shot for treason.

By substituting fiction for reality, the US media took the country to war. The CNN and Fox News "journalists" are as responsible for America's ill-fated invasion of Iraq as Cheney and Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle.

With a sizable percentage of the US population now addicted to daily confirmations of their resentments and hatreds, US policy will be increasingly driven by tightly made up minds in pursuit of unrealistic agendas.

American troops are in Iraq on false pretenses. No one knows all the fateful consequences of this mistaken adventure. Bush's reelection would be seen as a vindication of aggression, and more aggression would likely follow. A continuing expenditure of blood, money, alliances, good will, and civil liberties is not a future to which to look forward.

[lastchance]

Both sides are abusing misinformation to try to win a political war. If anyone thought of the CBS stuff, that stuff on Bush's military service in the Guard was just as dirty as Fox News, probably more.

I do think these comments show us something. It is much easier to lump your enemies into one sum than it is to keep them separate, and Republicans are doing a pretty lousy job of keeping them separate, either by design or just by accident.

As for the right-wing conspiracy stuff, your essay upon that was filled with rhetoric. I want to see exactly how it happened. Explain pure facts, we already heard your commentary. However, I would assume that you would tell us to go read "Cruel and Unusual" the book by Mark Crispin Miller, but I do not have the time for that.

[GWB]

Kerry's marching orders:

http://www.blogsforbush.com/images/globaltest.jpg

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
the war in Iraq was "started by terrorists." I agree, but I doubt that Keyes and I mean the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you believe Americans are terrorists. That says a lot about you Chris.

[Chris Alger]

I suppose that someone who thinks that al Qaeda proves "Arabs are terrorists" also believes that a war of aggression enabled by official lying proves "Americans are terrorists." Your words, not mine.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
your essay upon that was filled with rhetoric. I want to see exactly how it happened. Explain pure facts

[/ QUOTE ]

A "CNN/Gallup poll found that 42% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 terrorist attack on the US and 32% believe that Saddam Hussein personally planned the attack."

Sounds like a statement of fact to me. Ditto with the media treatment of Scott Ritter and quote by Keyes.

[Chris Alger]

This is a perfect example of what I've been saying about the GOP obsession with lying. Of course Kerry doesn't believe that national defense requires foreign permission. Nor does the UN Charter for that matter.

But when Kerry used the phrase "global test" in reference to the ability to prove to the U.S. electorate and the world that the war is justified, the GOP jumped on it to falsely claim it amounts to giving other countries a veto, even after Kerry said the exact opposite. To the extent the GOP disagrees with Kerry's real position, it means: "we should sometimes wage war for no good reason."

Up = Down, another brownshirt equation.

[lastchance]

I agree many Americans are misinformed, but I just didn't see the level of detail I really want from an allegation about a right-wing conspiracy.

I want to see how they destroyed the leading expert on Iraq's WMDs. I really want to see how the Right Wing crazies took off with something. Very, very specific examples.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Note: the war in Iraq was "started by terrorists." I agree, but I doubt that Keyes and I mean the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come off it, Chris, you are twisting Keyes' words. Keyes was not saying that the Iraq war was started by terrorists.

Read in the larger context of his remarks (larger than you quoted), it is clear that Keyes is saying the terrorists are more widespread and more interconnectd in the Middle East than just being a local phenomonen here or there. Keyes is essentially saying what Kasparov said, that Arab/Islamic terror against the West shares much ideologically across its factions. Keyes also mentioned Saddam's financial support of Palestinian suicide bombing terror.

Thus Keyes was saying that the Arab/Islamic Middle East started a terror war against the West and it is a mistake to treat al-Qaeda as entirely unrelated to Hamas as entirely unrelated to Iranian-sponsored terror as being unrelated to the terror elements seeking now to destabilize Iraq, etc. These groups all have similar goals and share much ideological and religious hatred of the West; they are all interconnected in varying degree.

Keyes is saying that defeating the supporters of terror throughout the Middle East (and Saddam at least was a direct financial sponsor of Palestinian terror) is an essential part of the war on terror. And what's more Keyes is absolutely right. The entire region has long produced terrorist organzations and supported them and that must be stopped.

Finally I don't think Keyes is necesarily calling for full-scale war against the entire Middle East, but rather for targeted actions of various kinds against the supporters of terror. Failure to take such actions would simply allow the terrorist orgs to plot and carry out attacks at the times and places of their own choosing. These organizations must be dismantled, and the state support they are receiving must be cut off.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
The [Middle East] has long produced terrorist organzations and supported them and that must be stopped.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

I have my guesses. They might be right.....

But if someone has a great answer for this one, I'd love to hear it.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]

But when Kerry used the phrase "global test" in reference to the ability to prove to the U.S. electorate and the world that the war is justified, the GOP jumped on it to falsely claim it amounts to giving other countries a veto, even after Kerry said the exact opposite. To the extent the GOP disagrees with Kerry's real position, it means: "we should sometimes wage war for no good reason."

Up = Down, another brownshirt equation

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you are right. All this global test bullshit is the BIG LIE which the right constantly tells. The left tells little lies like, $200 billion spent. Right tells big lies, "the vast majority of our tax cut went to the middle class".

[ QUOTE ]
To the extent the GOP disagrees with Kerry's real position, it means: "we should sometimes wage war for no good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really nailed it with this one.

[andyfox]

"We are engaged in a war against terror that . . . involves a global infrastructure of insidious individuals. We have seen the work they do, in Russia and elsewhere, against innocent lives in the most bestial fashion possible. To fight that war . . . it is not sufficient to react after the fact. You have got to preemptively move . . ."

This is the Bush Doctrine in all its simplicity. It sounds so much to me like our anti-Communist doctrine of the early Cold War. It sees no gray, only black and white. It will lead to exactly what Walter Lippman predicted our Cold War blindess would lead : subversion of our principles, with attendant disasters for people in other countries whose governments are branded as not with us and therefore against us.

It is not because the thinking behind the doctrine is completely wrong. It is because it refuses to see other issues. Mao and Ho were Communists, but their success had absolutely nothing to do with an international Communist conspiracy. There may have been Communists in the United States during the 1950s, and maybe even some in positions of responsibility, but they had nothing to do with us "losing" China (as if a country could belong to us and thus be "lost").

Note that Keyes sees the Russian situation as part of a global network of insidious individuals with no mention of the Chechnyan context. The war on terrorism cannot be won without immense suffering caused by us if we insist on seeing every issue within the prism of that war alone.

[Chris Alger]

Every faction in the Middle East (as with most of the world) has used and relied on terrorism to accomplish political goals, including the ones supported by the U.S. (the IDF has killed more civilians than all Palestinian terrorists in history, and continues to do so at the rate of one or two every day). So there's no "war on terrorism" being waged by the U.S. At most, there's a war on "some terrorism," waged mostly by words, against those terrorist-supporting factions of which the U.S. disapproves. Supporters of the "war on terrorism" respond: very well, but even if the U.S. is selective, why should the terrorists we're going after get off the hook? Answer: the shouldn't, but that isn't the issue because if the U.S. were truly concerned about terror, it would apply its condemnation across the board. Therefore, supporting the "war on terrorism" isn't really supporting an effort to neutralize or punish terrorists, but amounts to supporting something else. Of course, part of this "war" includes the effort to eliminate al Qaeda, a worthy goal. But as the White House and certainly Alan Keyes constantly insist, there's a lot more to the "war on terror" than that.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I have my guesses. They might be right.....

But if someone has a great answer for this one, I'd love to hear it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Simply because for so long the west has tolerated it.

Stu

[lastchance]

What are these political goals?

[Chris Alger]

The political goals of terrorism are usually to change the behavior or attitudes of a large group of civilians through the more or less random application of extreme violence. For example, during Operation Grapes of Wrath, Israel wanted to put pressure on the government of Lebanon to put pressure on Syria to put pressure no Hizbollah. So it bombed civilian centers in southern Lebanon in the hope that the resulting terror would create refugees to flee to Beruit, forcing the Lebanese government to act and getting the ball rolling (it didn't work, oh well). That's as clear an example of terrorism as exists, but you won't find U.S. officials calling it that. In fact, they'd more likely lump it together as part of the "fight against terrorism."

[Chris Alger]

When asked exclusively about the war in Iraq, Keyes responded: "We are engaged in a war against terror that was started by the terrorists...." The clear implication of his very plain language was that the war in Iraq was in fact "started by the terrorists." Keyes is a radio and TV personality answering the first question of the biggest debate of his political career. He knows what he's saying and I haven't "twisted" a thing. Keyes's argument is also perfectly consistent with the demogogic approach taken by Bush, Cheney and hundreds of other GOP luminaries who contend that the war in Iraq is a consequence of the threat posed by al Qaeda, Saddam's "allies," according to Bush.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
The war on terrorism cannot be won without immense suffering caused by us if we insist on seeing every issue within the prism of that war alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "war on terrorism" cannot be won because there isn't any war on terrorism. Even if there were a war against terrorism, we couldn't be fighting it by pouring ever greater amounts of gas on the fire, as the far right demands.

I read a few months back that the greatest number of suicide bombings, in the world, have been carried out by the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. Ever hear Bush mention them? Do you think that any GOP leader has ever suggested sending troops to Sri Lanka in order to wipe them the filthy terrorists? Of course not, because nobody cares about Sri Lanka for the reasons they care about Iraq.

For much of the year they've been negotiating their greivances with the government of Sri Lanka. Rather than being denounced as "negotiating with terrorists," the U.S. State Department applauds these efforts. Here (http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/21388.htm), for example, is Powell asking the Tigers to prove that they are "capable of playing a legitimate role in the political life of Sri Lanka," despite their "practice of turning its sons and daughters into human bombs." Can you imagine him saying the same thing about al Qaeda or even Hamas without getting crucified as a deserter from the war against terror?

The "war on terror" isn't a quixotic mission to vanquish terrorism. It's a means of scaring us into supporting things we otherwise wouldn't while distracting us from thinking about why terrorism is getting worse.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
But when Kerry used the phrase "global test" ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the term "global test" refer to government policy that Kerry is formulating or has formulated? A yes or no response please, spare me your spin.

[adios]

Same question for you; does the term "global test" refer to government policy that Kerry is formulating or has formulated? A yes or no response please.

I'm heading out of town for the next 5 days or so and I doubt that I'll be getting back to this thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif. To me the term "global test" refers to a government policy regarding preemption. Go back to Kerry's answer in the debate and you'll see that the "global test" comment was an answer to a question about preemptive war. Process is the means by which policy is carried out more or less. I asked that question about what the process for enacting Kerry's "global test" policy would be and the answers I received were that process is unimportant for enacting policy which in my opinion is ludicrous and that the process would be that fight the preemptive war and after words have iron clad proof that you offer to the rest of the world that your preemptive war was justified. I maintain that Kerry's referring to a policy that inidicates a justification to the rest of the world for a preemptive war before the fact. Maybe I'm being arrogant but I think my interpretation is far more reasonable than those who believe it would be after the fact. If I'm right then my question stands, what would the "Global Test" process entail in justifying a preemptive war to the rest of the world and what constitutes passing the "Global Test" as a result of that process?

If "Global Test" comment is just campaign rhetoric then it's irrelevant.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
When asked exclusively about the war in Iraq, Keyes responded: "We are engaged in a war against terror that was started by the terrorists...." The clear implication of his very plain language was that the war in Iraq was in fact "started by the terrorists."

[/ QUOTE ]

No Chris, I don't believe that's what Keyes was saying, reading his answer in the larger context of his remarks. He was in the process of giving the "long answer", and you are seizing upon a passage of moderate length as his "short answer". Granted, he could have ordered his words and thoughts for greater clarity in this specific example.

[texaspimp]

Chris, I am always amazed at your research ability. I envy your ability to find information to support your opinions.

I do not have the resources to research as voraciously as you. I simply have my opinions. One of which is you assert that CNN and Fox News impuned Ritter's character. Therefore they are not to be trusted to bring the "truth" to the American people. Then you cite a CNN/Gallup poll and refer to the results multiple times to support your argument. Well, which is it? Is CNN trustworthy or not? (I vote for the latter.)

As for Keyes remarks about terrorism, Iraq, preemptive action. I used to admire Keyes a lot more than I do now, for various reasons. However, I am curious as to the Democratic position on premption. If the left wants to castigate President Bush for Iraq (which IS preemption), how can they then claim, "We will hunt down terrorists wherever they are and kill them"? Then, at some point, John Edwards states "What are you going to do, invade every country with terrorists?"

I hope we can leave all vitriolic responses out of this thread. I believe this to be the single most signifact problem the United States has ever had to encounter. Our very livlihood, and my children's livlihood depends on us defeat this scourge.

Good luck to all in the future!

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I am curious as to the Democratic position on premption. If the left wants to castigate President Bush for Iraq (which IS preemption), how can they then claim, "We will hunt down terrorists wherever they are and kill them"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can believe in preemption while at the same time realize that preemptive action wasn't the right thing to do in this particular instance.

As a means of illustration, let's say Bush decided to bomb Iceland after 9/11 to preempt terrorism. Democrats might very well argue that the war was wrong. They might very well say that Iceland had no ties to terrorism, that they weren't a threat, and that a preemptive war against them was inappropriate. They might argue that we haven't satisfied any rational test to prove that our preemption was appropriate. Bush/Cheney would respond that the Democrats want other countries to have veto power and that the Democrats are against the right to preemptively attack.

[texaspimp]

Elwood, I understand your position. However, it is not as if Iraq was somehow mistaken as Switzerland or Iceland. I understand that reasonable people may differ on the degree of importance of Iraq. I can also understand people who think that we should not have invaded Iraq. But to suggest that Iraq posed no threat to the United States is intellectually dishonest. We may disagree on the level of the threat, but the threat was there.

Thanks for the cogent response. It is appreciated.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
wever, it is not as if Iraq was somehow mistaken as Switzerland or Iceland

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. My point was to only illustrate that opposition preemptive action in Iraq does not necessarily mean opposing all preemptive action.

[Chris Alger]

1. Like other news organizations, I presume that CNN's polls are performed by professional opinion firms under contract. Like the rest of the mainstream, CNN does some things extremely well, but unfortunately its "job" does not include preventing the public mind from being damaged by official disinformation. "Taking care of the public" is not CNN's job. It's not anyone's job.

2. The war in Iraq wasn't "preemption" because there was no threat unique to Iraq that it was designed to preempt. This was clear when the administration ignored the results of the Blix's team, which negated the official pretext, and instead demanded that nothing short of regime change would satisfy us. Since te U.S. was not interested in Iraq's actual intentions and capabilities (the only things that would create a threat), we logically conclude that the U.S. wasn't motivated by perceived security threats but by the opportunities fostered by regime change.

3. You're right that Kerry and Edwards send mixed signals on preemption.

[anatta]

No, Global Test isn't a "test" or list of criteria that has to be answered. Its a test of legitimacy or truth. Read the quote, Kerry says this right after he says global test. Is the reason valid or are we making shite up? Is the Sec. of State going to have to apologize? Will the word of the US President be good enough again? Sorry gave you more than a yes or no answer.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"I maintain that Kerry's referring to a policy that inidicates a justification to the rest of the world for a preemptive war...."

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Kerry opposes wars that cannot be justified. So, presumably, does the GOP. The issue is whether the Iraq war was justifiable, not whether it should have been. The GOP line that Kerry advocates the need for "permission" from foreign countries before waging a justifiable war is another of a long list of Iraq-related lies spawned by the GOP smear machine, enabled only because GOP stalwarts are so dumb that they believe almost anything their masters tell them.

[texaspimp]

This may shock you, but I agree with that. I still believe that Iraq was a valid target. I admit that I am not sure that they should have been second, but I do like the fact that we were proactive and not reactive.

BTW, may I request "B" Movie Boxcar Blues??

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
This may shock you, but I agree with that

[/ QUOTE ]

The post to which I was originally replying suggests otherwise, but it very easily could have been a misunderstanding on my part.

I have no problem with someone who honestly believes that it was valid (i.e. a good act of) preemption. I think they're wrong, but so what? I do have a problem with the intellectually dishonest approach that says that because some democrats are against the Iraq war, they must be against all preemptive wars.

[texaspimp]

I did not mean to imply that all Democrats are against all preemption. If you drew that inferrence from my earlier posts, I regret my error.

I do believe, and Chris Alger confirms, that the Kerry/Edwards stance on preemption is ambiguous.

[andyfox]

Good points. Of course the Cold War wasn't all that cold too. I suppose all countries do it, but ours makes a particular hobby of claiming we only act altruistically, with all the buzz words ("democracy" being our favorite) thrown in. Truman was told by the Republicans to "scare the hell" out of the people or else they couldn't get away politically with supporting him. And so he did and it became a habit that persists to this day.

Truth is an elusive commodity in public discourse (particularly where foreign policy is concerned), and deliberately so. The thing that amazed me here at 2+2 was the tenacity with which those who disagreed with what I had to say insisted that there was no mendacity invovled in the government's claims leading up to the invasion of Iraq. What government has ever told the truth when going to war?

One of my favorite commentaries is from, of all things, the movie Casablanca. When Claude Rains needs to curry favor with the Nazis, he shuts down Rick's place. When asked why, he says he is shocked, SHOCKED, to find gambling going on. And at that moment an employee brings him a wad of cash, saying, "Here are your winnings, sir," to which he replies, "Thank you very much."

[Chris Alger]

This might be quibbling over terms, but I beleive the term "preemptive" strongly suggests that an attack of some sort is underway, planned or otherwise inevitable, or nearly so. When we speak of preemption, we imply that there's something in particular we intend to preempt.

There is no evidence that Iraq was contemplating an attack against the U.S. and a ton of evidence that it wasn't, for hte obvious reason that any such attack would have invited massive retalliation.

The war on Iraq is more aptly described as unprovoked aggression, not preemptive war.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that amazed me here at 2+2 was the tenacity with which those who disagreed with what I had to say insisted that there was no mendacity invovled in the government's claims leading up to the invasion of Iraq. What government has ever told the truth when going to war?


[/ QUOTE ]
Right. This gets back to the tabboo think I like to talk about. What's interesting is that when we accuse the U.S. of lying about war, all we're really doing is accusing the U.S. of acting like most other great powers, of doing the thing we would expect an entity like the U.S. to do. In fact, we would expect more of it in the U.S. given our "isolationist" heritage (which encompasses rational ideological anti-imperialism, not just the NIMBY attitude it connotes), which I think was what the Truman-Vandenburg dialogue was about. Americans generally oppose military action unless they're faced with a direct threat, whereas leaders are institutionally impelled to take action to protect long-term interests. One can view this as the difference between short-sided ordinary folks and visionary statesmen, or the difference between those that tend to pay the price for the war and those who don't but are more concerned with the interests of the beneficiaries. We can't discuss war along these lines, however, because to do so is always denounced as anti-Americanism.

The hypersensitive reaction you refer to boils down to a reaction against any suggestion that the U.S. is not exceptional, that it could be motivated by the same interests that motivate other countries. France's relationship to Iraq can be over oil profits, even "bribes," but our relationship can't even relate to power or wealth. If you attempt to speak rationally about tangible, concrete interests and goals, you're accused of "hating America."

This taboo against treating the U.S. like a normal country is the reason why you can rarely get a simple discussion together about weighing evidence that could justify war. It also explains why so many are so willing to accept the most absurd claims about the emergence, virtually overnight, of a "threat" from a country with no Navy or Air Force, unable for years to control nearly 40% of the land within its borders.