No more peacetime presidents?

Will the United States ever have another peacetime president? It may sound like a stupid question, but this is now exactly what some people are starting to ask. Even state categorically that there won't be. Micah Zenko makes several points on this at a "Foreign Policy" blog. 

Of course it's not rocket science that, for whatever reason, the US gov hasn't a fuckin clue on foreign policy. Armed to the teeth, they careen around the world like a bully demanding countries do as they say (certainly not as they do - Gitmo anyone? Abu Ghraib?). If it doesn't go their way, they can declare anyone they like as an "enemy of the state" (like Julian Assange). Now, they can even bomb defenceless communities in foreign countries without even declaring war on them. Even though they kill many innocent civilians, the excuse is simply that we are at war and the dead are "collateral damage". They can lock people up for years without trial, just by applying their own label to a person as being an "enemy combatant". I mean anyone with half a brain can see that the US has gone a bit nuts here, to say the least. 

So it comes to the question, why? Especially as Obama is supposed to be some kind of leftie or something (yeah right... BS) how can a president like that endorse such policies? Abandon the principles of freedom and democracy to continue a never ending vague war against "terror". No need to point out the similarities between this and Orwell's 1984, with the never ending war with Oceania.

Micah Zenko gives a brilliant insight into this:

Since September 11, 2001, the president has been able to threaten or use military force to achieve a range of foreign policy objectives with few checks and balances or sustained media coverage -- to an extent unprecedented in U.S. history. Anything short of deploying large numbers of U.S. ground troops is tolerated, and any executive branch justification for using lethal force is broadly accepted, including the notion that such military operations can continue in perpetuity. more

Well you can't argue with that. He goes on:

The primary reason for this stems from how policymakers in Washington perceive the world -- a perception that bridges partisan divisions. According to most officials, the international security environment is best characterized by limitless, complex, and imminent threats facing the United States. Those threats require the military to be perpetually on a wartime footing and the president to frequently authorize the use of lethal force. As a Pentagon strategy document first noted in 2010, the United States has entered "a period of persistent conflict." more

I think there's a word for that, um, paranoia. Anyway.... 

Supporting the increased use of drones, special operations, cyberattacks, and other covert military programs has been the tremendous growth in the size and cost of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC). In 1998, the intelligence budget was $26.7 billion (based on an accidental leak from that year). In 2012, the IC will spend $75.4 billion for all of its national and military intelligence programs, the scope of which is astonishing. As Dana Priest and William Arkin reported in 2010: "1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States." This sprawling U.S. intelligence apparatus is estimated to require 210,000 governmental employees and 30,000 private contractors. 

Congressional oversight of presidential war-making powers has further dwindled. There are a few libertarian leaning congressional members who raise the War Powers Resolution during hearings with administration officials, although only when the serving president is of the other political party. Sen. Byrd attempted to rally fellow legislators by waving his pocket Constitution and reminding them, "Congress is not a rubberstamp or a presidential lapdog -- obedient and unquestioning. Oversight, oversight, oversight is among our most important responsibilities." Sen. James Webb, who is stepping down in January, cosponsored a bill in May that would require the White House to formally request congressional approval before using the military in humanitarian operations (it would require a vote within 48 hours). Webb noted: "Year by year, skirmish by skirmish, the role of the Congress in determining where the U.S. military would operate, and when the awesome power of our weapon systems would be unleashed, has diminished." Predictably, the bill went nowhere. more

Surely this isn't representative of what Americans really want? Surely they'd rather have money spent on things like schools, hospitals, welfare, etc. than to see their money blown to smithereens as another lot of civilians die in another country?

Where is the alternative political parties? Is the US simply bound to both major parties who are in effect very similar to each other? Where are the voices of discontent? Or are they just drowned out by a media compliant to both parties? Perhaps some of the politicians over there could stop the rhetoric and go live under the drones in Pakistan. Maybe then they'd see for themselves the absurdity of calling a drone attack a "surgical strike", and that all they're doing is making more enemies. But that's what the politicians want anyway it seems, more enemies, more wars, because it's a good way to keep the domestic population compliant.