In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Their goals may or may not coincide with the best interests of the American
people. Think of the divergence of interests, for example, between the grunts who are actually
fighting this war, who have been eating sand and spilling their blood in the desert, and the power brokers who fought like crazy to make the war happen and are profiteering from
it every step of the way."
- Bob Herbert, "Spoils of War," The New York Times, April 10, 2003
"Militarism means a domination of the military man over the civilian, an undue
emphasis on military needs, policies, spirit, values and ideals. . . a readiness to defend one's
country's interests by force of arms, the acceptance of the military profession as honourable
Peter Phillips. The Tragedy of Nazi Germany
If the ability to anticipate future dangers for the nation is the mark of a truly great president
then Dwight D. Eisenhower is the greatest president of the XX century. Dwight Eisenhower's presidency
is probably better remembered less for what he did than for what he said while heading for the exit.
In a nationally televised address on January 17, 1961, only four days before John F. Kennedy's inaugural
and three years from coup d'etat which brought military-industrial complex in full control of
all branches of the government (JFK assassination).
Eisenhower warned of the dangers of "undue influence" exerted by the "military-industrial
complex." In other word appearance on the scene a new and formidable political force represented by
arm manufactures, intelligence agencies, Army brass and selected supplies industries (oil industry comes
to mind). Due to presence of intelligence agencies in this combination this force it out of civilian
control and represents "state within a state".
But the term is more then undue influences, it's actually about a gradual, but inevitable transition
of power to MIC iether by stealth coup or open coup d'etat. And as soon as MIC came on political
scene, it inevitably transforms the state into some variant of totalitarian state, such an "inverted
totalitarism" or National Security State.
It's not exactly "WAR IS PEACE. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength", but close enough. This this
warning represents the historical importance of Eisenhower's farewell address. Here is the video of
Eisenhower cautioned that maintaining a large, permanent military establishment was "new in the American
experience," and suggested that an "engaged citizenry" offered the only effective defense against the
"misplaced power" of the military-industrial lobby. But the problem with his warning was that it came
too late: after the second World War to dismantle permanent military-intelligence establishment with
links to armament industries and research institutions as well as multinationals interested in aggressive
foreign policy that helps penetrate foreign markets (British Petrolium was the force behind
1953 Iranian coup d'état)
was an impossible task. We can state, that the key result of the second World War was the establishment
of the rule of military industrial complex. Here is a relevant quote from his famous speech:
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace;
to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people
and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure
traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon
us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the
world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global
in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger
is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not
so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry
forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle
-- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted
course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small,
there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the
miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense;
development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic
and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may
be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain
balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance
between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably
desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the
nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the
future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the
main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty,
ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors
in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American
makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer
risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly
engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income
of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in
the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in
every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative
need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil,
resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals,
so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture,
has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and
costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of
scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically
the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct
of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually
a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations,
and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert
to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces,
new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals
of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's
future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering,
for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material
assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.
We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever
growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud
confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with
the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength.
That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony
of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn
how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need
is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with
a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness
of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been
so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting
peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been
made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little
I can to help the world advance along that road.
The term MIC ("Military-Industrial Complex") is also closely related to the phenomena that is defined
by the term corporatismand the term National Security State.
In a way, this is just a more politically correct way to describe
corporatism as a social system. The term corporatism is taunted by the link to Mussolini
Italy and quite often is associated with the term "Italian fascism". As such this association instantly
makes the discussion more emotional and defensive.
Like the term corporatism, the term "Military-Industrial Complex" is used to denote
a mutation of state in which the dominant power belong to the large corporations allied with the
government including but not limited to a political block between the military and the industrial producers
of military equipment and their lobbyists in Congress. In a sense, the key result of WWII was that
Nazi Germany and its allies lost, but corporatism as a political movement they represented, actually
Alliance of government (both Congress and presidential administration) and corporate interests is
the defining feature of this new form of political regime. Eisenhower initially wrote "military-industrial-congressional
complex" (the term, which is of course is more precise as corporatism is a marriage of state and
large corporations, but also more divisive), but was moved by strong advice to omit "congressional."
We can see his political abilities and instincts of this great president in action in his final speech.
It became a hit and people sited it, without understanding the depth and the real meaning of the
warning, as well as the nature of the danger: mutation of the state into corporatist national security
state which completely excludes public from the political process.
The term is easily extended to any group of corporations for which a significant part of revenue
comes from the government contracts or in other way is guaranteed by government, or which depend from
the expansion of market by government force (especially foreign expansion). In this sense we can talk
about financial complex as
another candidate for close and dangerous alliance with government .
No matter what set of industries are the key members of the alliance with the government, the press
is controlled by the same players. The net result is a super-aggressive (we are the dominant player
and you suckers should not stand on our way), jingoistic foreign policy oriented on acquiring
new and protecting old markets. In this sense one of the defining features of such a regime
is seeking/protecting/opening foreign markets using direct military power (aka invasions) or threat
of thereof. That's why, the USA foreign policy seems unchanged the last 60 years, regardless of who
controls the executive, and or, the legislative branches of government.
On the other hand it can be viewed as an implementation of Military Keynesianism:
a government economic policy in which the government devotes large amounts of spending to the military
in an effort to increase economic growth and the speed of technological advancement (via dual use technologies).
Many fundamental technologies such as computers, large scale integral circuits, Internet, GPS, etc are
the net results of adoption and enhancement of former military-oriented technologies by the civilian
As for aggressive foreign policy there is one important difference between "predator states" and
fascist regimes: extreme, rabid nationalism is typical only for fascist regimes, but is not a defining
feature of "predator states". But aggressive foreign policy is and that's why the term invented by Jamie
Galbraith ( “the predator state”) in his book bearing that title aptly reflect the defining feature
of such states. In other words aggressive foreign policy is an immanent feature of the regime -- such
regimes are almost always are engaged in some kind of war. Related, but more narrow term is "disaster
capitalism" introduced by Naomi Klein which explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed
democratically. Her Shock Doctrine book is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies
were pushed through the throat of states in trouble, and prevailed through the brutal exploitation of
disaster-shocked people and countries.
Of course, both the American society and the U.S. armaments industry today are different then it
was when Dwight Eisenhower made his farewell speech. See also
The Farewell Address 50 Years Later. The USA now is the world's greatest producer and exporter of
arms on the planet, spend more on armed forces than all other nations combined -- while going deeply
into debt to do so. It also stations over 500,000 troops, and untold number of spies, contractors, consultants,
etc. on more than 737 bases around the world in 130 countries (even this is not a complete count) at
a cost of near 100 billions a year. The 2008 Pentagon inventory includes 190,000 troops in 46 nations
and territories, and 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. In just
Japan, we have almost hundred thousand people who are either members of US forces or are closely connected
to US. The explicit purpose is to provide control over as many nations as possible. Funny, but among
other items Pentagon also maintains 234 golf courses around the world, 70 Lear Jet airplanes for generals
and admirals (to make it more convenient to fly there), and a ski resort in the Bavarian Alps.
Statistics compiled by the Federation of American Scientists analyzed by Gore Vidal show 201 military
operations initiated by the U.S. against others between the end of WWII and 9/11 - none of which directly
resulted in the creation of a democracy. These included Iran (1953, 1979), Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1959-present),
Congo (1960), Brazil (1964), Indonesia (1965), Vietnam (1961-73), Laos (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-73),
Greece (1967-73), Chile (1973), Afghanistan (1979-present), El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua (1980s),
Iraq (1991-present), Panama (1989), Grenada (1983). (The Korean War is a notable positive exception.)
Per Johnson, Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA director Gates
made it clear that U.S. aid to the mujaheddin began six months prior to the Soviet invasion, and helped
to provoke it (with the direct goal of seeking Vietnam for Soviet troops). So the USA by-and-large created,
organized and financed global Islamic fundamentalist forces, which at some point became less controllable
from the former center.
A recent 'Newsweek' article also pointed out waste in the Pentagon - Secretary Gates estimates there
are 30 levels between himself and line officers, and expects by 2020 for the U.S. to have 'only' 20X
China's number of advanced stealth fighters; other researchers recently found 530 deputy assistant secretaries
of defense, compared to 78 in 1960. See also
Dismantling the Empire .
Despite the economic decline, of may be because of it,
New Militarism is now pandemic,
supported by both parties and aggressively used by Republican Party to maintain the unity of fragile
coalition of rag tag groups (see Understanding Mayberry
Machiavellians). Neo-conservative ideology still dominates foreign policy and its essence (spread
of "liberal democracy" with a shadow goal of defending/promoting own geo-strategical interests and first
of all access to cheap oil) is not that different from the old Soviets militarism, eager to spread or
"defend" the blessings of "Scientific
Socialism (Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles remember those attempts all too well).
While far from historic high (reached during World War II, when it represented 20% of the civilian
workforce) US military still employs 2.2 million people, or about 2% of the civilian workforce. So they
represent a society within a society. If we add Department of Energy and military contractors like
Lockheed Martin, Northrop
Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, United Technologies. L-3 Communications, etc
as well as servicing firms such as Halliburton/KBR/Blackwater/DynCorp we can add to this figure another
million people. That means that all-in all at least three million US citizen directly or indirectly
works for military-industrial complex. But what is more important that military-industrial complex
spends up to 50% of all taxes:
In Fiscal Year 1999 the Department of Defense awarded $118 billion to contractors for goods and
services. The "Big Three" in the defense industry -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon -- alone
accounted for 26% of all defense contracts in FY'99.
In fiscal year 2003 the United States Government will spend on the military more than all the
rest of the countries on Earth combined. Current expenditures are 437 billion and our past obligations
are 339 billion, this equals 776 billion. 46% of our Taxes go to the Military Industrial Complex:
figure doesn't even begin to account for all of the off-budget, black projects, homeland security
nor the 40+ billion the United States Government will spend on intelligence in 2003. -- Mark Elsis
Lovearth, Jan. 8, 2002
Abstracting from the ideological bent, totalitarian regimes like USSR (or China) can be viewed as
examples of MIC dominance in the form of merger military with the state, a variant of George Orwell's
"doublespeak" future depicted in his novel "1984". And the dissolution of the USSR is directly related
to the destruction of the USSR economy imposed by militarily industrial complex (see
Are We Going Down Like the Soviets World). Although arm race with USA played significant role, Soviet
military establishment overplayed its hand and killed the host. Collapse of communist ideology and emergence
of neoliberalism was just a final strew that broke the camel back as KGB brass realized that it will
be better off under capitalism and changed sides. Still, China, which uses the same bankrupt ideological
doctrine with political life dominated by Communist Party, managed to survive and even economically
prosper using strange mix of communism with neoliberalism in economics.
Sheldon Wolin, who taught the history of political philosophy from Plato to the present to Berkeley
and Princeton graduate students, introduced the term "inverted
totalitarism", which probably can be better called neo-bolshevism. This is an interesting,
uniquely american variant of National Security state. He thinks that the latter is based on two forces:
Corporate power, which is in charge of managed democracy. Wolin argues, "The privatization
of public services and functions manifests the steady evolution of corporate power into a political
form, into an integral, even dominant partner with the state. It marks the transformation
of American politics and its political culture from a system in which democratic practices and values
were, if not defining, at least major contributing elements, to one where the remaining democratic
elements of the state and its populist programs are being systematically dismantled." This
campaign has largely succeeded. "Democracy represented a challenge to the status quo, today it has
become adjusted to the status quo."
The military-industrial complex, which is in charge of projecting power abroad (Empire building).
The official U.S. defense budget for fiscal year 2008 is $623 billion; the next closest national
military budget is China's at $65 billion, according to the Central Intelligence Agency. Foreign
military operations literally force democracy to change its nature: "In order to cope with the imperial
contingencies of foreign war and occupation," according to Wolin:
"democracy will alter its character, not only by assuming new behaviors abroad (e.g., ruthlessness,
indifference to suffering, disregard of local norms, the inequalities in ruling a subject population)
but also by operating on revised, power-expansive assumptions at home.
It will, more often than not, try to manipulate the public rather than engage its members
in deliberation. It will demand greater powers and broader discretion in their use ('state secrets'),
a tighter control over society's resources, more summary methods of justice, and less patience
for legalities, opposition, and clamor for socioeconomic reforms."
"Among the factors that have promoted inverted totalitarianism are the practice and psychology
of advertising and the rule of "market forces" in many other contexts than markets, continuous technological
advances that encourage elaborate fantasies (computer games, virtual avatars, space travel), the
penetration of mass media communication and propaganda into every household in the country, and
the total co-optation of the universities. Among the commonplace fables of our society are hero
worship and tales of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, action measured
in nanoseconds, and a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose adepts
are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge.
Masters of this world are masters of images and their manipulation.
Wolin reminds us that the image of Adolf Hitler flying to Nuremberg in 1934 that opens Leni Riefenstahl's
classic film "Triumph of the Will" was repeated on May 1, 2003, with President George Bush's apparent
landing of a Navy warplane on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to proclaim "Mission Accomplished"
In short arrival on political scene of military industrial complex inevitably lead to its political
dominance and establishing of some variant of National Security State with managed democracy which is
promoted by subservient, corrupt and totally controlled media.
It a way it is so similar to the brand of totalitarism practiced in the late USSR that some call
the USA USSA. It has the same strong "total surveillance" tendencies. It's bolshevism minus:
Charismatic leader (although Brezhnev was not such leader and Gorbachev was a joke in style
of Bush II who never mastered native language)
Repression of dissidents (silencing them is enough, physical removal is unnecessary and too
Strict censorship of press (dominance of government propaganda is enough)
Single official ruling party (although a
two party system is just improved variant of a single party rule)
Concentration camps (OK, Guantanamo proved that wrong),
Official ideology (although neoliberalism comes very
close to Marxism in this role and can be considered to be official USA ideology, almost undistinguishable
from the role of MArxism in the USSR). Politically growth of power of media-military-industrial-complex
correlates with growth of neoliberal political doctrine and dramatic increase on inequality within
Western societies including the USA.
Conscription to the army (private army makes wars of choice a "cakework")
The ever-present enemy. Although "war with terrorism" comes close.
Constant political mobilization via government propaganda (that does not mean that government
propaganda is less effective then in the USSR, it's just more subtle and performed by private entities).
As radio personality Don Imus once said of top news chiefs, "They write the news for their friends."
In view of existing evidence the quote should probably be modified into "They write the news
for their government handlers." . Despite continuing disinformation campaign, press still commands
enormous influence and some level of respect because there is no alternative to press in modern
society. Still the modern joke that people who write to the editor of the mainstream newspaper a
letter sighing it with "Respectfully ..." should consult a psychiatrist, has some grain of truth
in it. Respect for editors of newspapers might be going the way of dinosaurs.
As Oscar Wilde's once noted: "The truth is seldom pure and never simple". Here is a relevant quote:
Wolin writes, "Our thesis is this: it is possible for a form of totalitarianism, different
from the classical one, to evolve from a putatively 'strong democracy' instead of a 'failed' one."
His understanding of democracy is classical but also populist, anti-elitist and only slightly represented
in the Constitution of the United States. "Democracy," he writes, "is about the conditions
that make it possible for ordinary people to better their lives by becoming political beings and
by making power responsive to their hopes and needs." It depends on the existence of a demos
-- "a politically engaged and empowered citizenry, one that voted, deliberated, and occupied all
branches of public office." Wolin argues that to the extent the United States on occasion came close
to genuine democracy, it was because its citizens struggled against and momentarily defeated the
elitism that was written into the Constitution.
"No working man or ordinary farmer or shopkeeper," Wolin points out, "helped to write the Constitution."
He argues, "The American political system was not born a democracy, but born with a bias against
democracy. It was constructed by those who were either skeptical about democracy or hostile to it.
Democratic advance proved to be slow, uphill, forever incomplete. The republic existed for three-quarters
of a century before formal slavery was ended; another hundred years before black Americans were
assured of their voting rights. Only in the twentieth century were women guaranteed the vote and
trade unions the right to bargain collectively. In none of these instances has victory been complete:
women still lack full equality, racism persists, and the destruction of the remnants of trade unions
remains a goal of corporate strategies. Far from being innate, democracy in America has gone against
the grain, against the very forms by which the political and economic power of the country has been
and continues to be ordered." Wolin can easily control his enthusiasm for James Madison, the primary
author of the Constitution, and he sees the New Deal as perhaps the only period of American
history in which rule by a true demos prevailed.
To reduce a complex argument to its bare bones, since the Depression, the twin forces of managed
democracy and Superpower have opened the way for something new under the sun: "inverted totalitarianism,"
a form every bit as totalistic as the classical version but one based on internalized co-optation,
the appearance of freedom, political disengagement rather than mass mobilization, and relying more
on "private media" than on public agencies to disseminate propaganda that reinforces the official
version of events. It is inverted because it does not require the use of coercion, police power
and a messianic ideology as in the Nazi, Fascist and Stalinist versions (although note that the
United States has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison -- 751 per 100,000 people --
of any nation on Earth). According to Wolin, inverted totalitarianism has "emerged imperceptibly,
unpremeditatedly, and in seeming unbroken continuity with the nation's political traditions."
The genius of our inverted totalitarian system "lies in wielding total power without appearing
to, without establishing concentration camps, or enforcing ideological uniformity, or forcibly suppressing
dissident elements so long as they remain ineffectual. A demotion in the status and stature
of the 'sovereign people' to patient subjects is symptomatic of systemic change, from democracy
as a method of 'popularizing' power to democracy as a brand name for a product marketable at home
and marketable abroad. The new system, inverted totalitarianism, is one that professes the opposite
of what, in fact, it is. The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed
without appearing to be suppressed."
Inverted totalitalism is also different from classic "National Security State" although similarities
are obvious. In his book "Brave New World Order" (Orbis Books, 1992, paper), Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer identified
seven characteristics of a National Security State
The first characteristic of a National Security State is that the military is the highest
authority. In a National Security State the military not only guarantees the security of the
state against all internal and external enemies, it has enough power to determine the overall direction
of the society. In a National Security State the military exerts important influence over political,
economic, as well as military affairs.
A second defining feature of a National Security State is that political democracy and democratic
elections are viewed with suspicion, contempt, or in terms of political expediency. National
Security States often maintain an appearance of democracy. However, ultimate power rests with the
military or within a broader National Security Establishment.
A third characteristic of a National Security State is that the military and related sectors
wield substantial political and economic power. They do so in the context of an ideology which
stresses that 'freedom" and "development" are possible only when capital is concentrated in the
hands of elites.
A fourth feature of a National Security State is its obsession with enemies. There are
enemies of the state everywhere. Defending against external and/or internal enemies becomes a leading
preoccupation of the state, a distorting factor in the economy, and a major source of national identity
A fifth ideological foundation of a National Security State is that the enemies of the state
are cunning and ruthless. Therefore, any means used to destroy or control these enemies is justified.
A sixth characteristic of a National Security State is that it restricts public debate and
limits popular participation through secrecy or intimidation. Authentic democracy depends on
participation of the people. National Security States limit such participation in a number of ways:
They sow fear and thereby narrow the range of public debate; they restrict and distort information;
and they define policies in secret and implement those policies through covert channels and clandestine
activities. The state justifies such actions through rhetorical pleas of "higher purpose" and vague
appeals to "national security."
Finally, the church is expected to mobilize its financial, ideological, and theological resources
in service to the National Security State.
All those features were also typical for Bolsheviks regime in the USSR, so the term "neo-bolshevism"
is also applicable.
New round of debates about military industrial complex was caused by recent revelations about NSA
activities in the USA (see
Big Uncle is Watching You)
and 50th anniversary of JFK
assassination and the key cue bono question about assassination:
Numerous books about the assassination suggest that in case actions of government represent a threat
to their interests, elements of military industrial complex can overthrow the United States government
by force of arms and that's can well be one interpretation of events which happened on November 22,
1963. HSCA had found that there were at least 2 shooters. The circumstances of JFK assassination are
so troubling and confusing that they create an impression of CIA coup d'Eetat. This impression is strengthened
by the fact that the US intelligence communities actively deceived and stonewalled the JFK murder investigation.
This possibility is explored in several books such as
Coup d'Etat in America The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Alan J. Weberman, Michael Canfield
and German book
JFK: Staatsstreich in Amerika. The reading of the former book suggests that some of the same
forces the did Kennedy in also brought about the downfall of Nixon. Here is one Amazon review of the
The authors believe that two of the tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza that day were Howard Hunt
and Frank Sturgis, and that JFK was killed by the CIA and Cuban exiles angry over the Bay of Pigs.
The assassination was then made to look like the work of Castro. "Members of a specially trained
assassination squad called Operation Forty were briefed on their roles in the conspiracy. A CIA
agent named Lee Harvey Oswald, who had a high 'expendability rating,' was chosen to play the role
of 'patsy' in the killing...Oswald was led to believe he was part of a plot to assassinate Castro
when in reality he was being set up as a pro-Castro scapegoat...But the officials of the Cuban consulate
in Mexico City refused to issue Oswald a visa. If they had acted differently, and the visa had been
found on Oswald's person after the assassination, most Americans would have been convinced that
[he] was an agent of Fidel Castro...His CIA case officer ordered him to bring a rifle to the depository
on the same day Kennedy was visiting Dallas and told him that there would be a message waiting for
him somewhere in the building around 12:30 that day."
There were two men behind the grassy knoll and two phony SS men behind the TSBD. "Meanwhile,
the killers, disguised as tramps, hid in some nearby boxcars..." Tippit was supposed to silence
Oswald but Oswald shot him first; he then went to the Texas Theater so he would be arrested in front
of lots of people to guarantee that he would be taken alive. Ruby was ordered by the mob to kill
Bertrand Russell's famous question about the Warren Commission's conclusions, "If, as we are told,
Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?" was never answered.
That creates a distinct impression that intelligence services ("Big Intelligence") play a very important
role in what is called MIC and are the core component of the modern National Security State. To the
extent that instead of the term "media military industrial complex" we probably should use "media military
intelligence industrial complex". As John Chuckman noted in his Nov 6, 2013 essay
HOW AMERICA LEARNED TO PLAY GOD
The record of arrogance and abuse by security organizations, such as CIA or the FBI, is long
and costly, filled with errors in judgment, abuse of power, incompetence, and immense dishonesty.
Owing to the black magic of classified secrecy, much of the record involves projects about which
we will never know, but even what we do know about is distressing enough. And I’m not sure that
it can be any other way so long as you have Big Intelligence. Apart from Big Intelligence’s own
propensity towards criminal or psychopathic behavior, one of the great ironies of Big Intelligence
is that it will always agree to bend, to provide whatever suppressions and fabrications are requested
by political leaders working towards the aims of the other great anti-democratic institutions, the
military and the corporations. This became blindingly clear in the invasion of Iraq and, even
before that, in the first Gulf War.
Among other things by access to "dirt" on politicians they provide powerful political filtering system
so that none undesirable slips into important office:
America’s political system, honed and shaped over many decades, fits comfortably with these institutions.
National elections are dominated by a two-party duopoly (being kept that way through countless institutional
barriers deliberately created to maintain the status quo) , both these parties are dominated by
huge flows of campaign contributions (contributions which form what economists call an effective
barrier to entry against any third party seriously being able to compete), both parties embrace
much the same policies except for some social issues of little interest to the establishment, and
election campaigns are reduced to nothing more than gigantic advertising and marketing operations
no different in nature to campaigns for two national brands of fast food or pop. It takes an extremely
long time for a candidate to rise and be tested before being trusted with the huge amounts of money
invested in an important campaign, and by that time he or she is a well-read book with no surprising
If for any reason this political filtering system fails, and someone slips through to an important
office without having spent enough time to make them perfectly predictable, there still remains
little chance of serious change on any important matter. The military-industrial-intelligence
complex provides a molded space into which any newcomer absolutely must fit. Just imagine the
immense pressures exerted by the mere presence of senior Pentagon brass gathered around a long polished
oak table or a table surrounded by top corporate figures representing hundreds of billions in sales
or representatives or a major lobbying group (and multi-million dollar financing source for the
party). We see the recent example of popular hopes being crushed after the election of Obama, a
man everyone on the planet hoped to see mend some of the ravages of George Bush and Dick Cheney.
But the man who once sometimes wore sandals and bravely avoided a superfluous and rather silly flag
pin on his lapel quickly was made to feel the crushing weight of institutional power, and he
bent to every demand made on him, becoming indistinguishable from Bush. Of course, the last
president who genuinely did challenge at least some of the great institutional powers, even to a
modest extent, died in an ambush in Dallas.
"All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give
their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately,
the general population goes along with the idea... That's the issue that I've been exploring:
How did the Republic turn into the Empire ... and how does a democracy become a dictatorship?
Yesterday U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice
fired Defense Secretary Hagel. It was a huge mistake for President Obama to agree to that move.
There are many foreign policy problems the White House created for itself. None of those are the
fault of Hagel but nearly all of them can be traced back to Susan Rice herself and her
surreal management style:
Earlier this year, the decision on how many U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan in 2015
was the subject of 14 meetings of NSC deputies, four gatherings involving Cabinet secretaries
and other NSC “principals,” and two NSC sessions with the president, according to a former senior
The consequence of those meetings was to pare back the military’s request by just 700 troops
— from 10,500 to 9,800.
After Obama and Rice, against earlier promises, secretly
extend U.S. combat in Afghanistan, the number decided after 20 NSC meetings is already
up in the air and likely to increase. Such decision making exemplifies mismanagement by Susan Rice,
not by Hagel.
Rice wanted Hagel fired because she was pissed when Hagel called her out on the chaotic non-policy
she developed against the Islamic State and with regard to Syria. As a realist he knows that the
U.S. will need the Syrian army under President Assad to push the Islamic State back into the underground.
Against the advice of the military Rice, a "liberal interventionist", insists on ousting Assad.
The neocons, including the
writers on Fred Hiatt's funny pages in the Washington Post, want Michèle Flournoy as replacement.
She is a COIN propagandist who argued for both surges, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both surges as well
as COIN failed to deliver what Flournoy and others promised.
Adding more incompetence to the U.S. foreign policy process as a Flournoy nomination would assure
will not promote world peace but more war.
"Adding more incompetence to the U.S. foreign policy......."
and that comment sets the tone for what comes after. BUT! "Incompetence"? What incompetence?
Looks to me like all is going very well in the remake the middle east and get into Africa
and you call that incompetence?
Looks to me like a job well done! Hagel may have just gone on to greener pastures- time will
And after they dragged Hagel's name through the mud on those hearings where he was pointedly
grilled about not being pro-Israel enough. I guess when it's all said and done, he wasn't. Rest
assured, the next one (Flournoy) will be certain to chug enough tubesteak and kosher sausage
links to make her bosses happy.
Susan rice ought to shave her moustache, she might get more respect this way. She's on par
with Samantha Power for Asshole of The Year.
james k. sayre | Nov 25, 2014 4:50:34 PM | 13
former Senator Hagel was no peach. He electronically stole his GOP primary election in Nebraska
and later electronically stole the general election. Guess who counted the votes? His own electronic
voting machine corporation. Not even a paper trail for the saps in Nebraska. Trust Chuck...
That was way back in 1996 or 1997. Republicans have stolen many elections electronically since
then. The corporate Dems get the GOPs get away with it, so that the Dems would have an excuse
to not pass progressive legislation...
Virgile | Nov 25, 2014 5:54:41 PM | 16
"As a realist he knows that the U.S. will need the Syrian army under President Assad to
push the Islamic State back into the underground."
That is not correct. In fact many media reported that the opposition and Turkey lost a 'friend'
with the departure of Hagel.
Hagel had never expressed that idea. Quite the contrary, like Turkey and France he wanted
Bashar Al Assad out before tackling the ISIS. In fact the was kicked because he questioned
Obama's strategy to postpone the fate of Bashar Al Assad to after the collapse of ISIS
Obama wanted to hide from Saudi Arabia and Turkey that he had no serious intention of removing
Bashar al Assad before having dealt completely with ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
He succeeded in fooling them by announcing that both of these countries will be hosting Syrian
rebels that the USA will train. Ironically Lavrov helped the US in fooling Turkey and Saudi
Arabia by accusing Obama to underhandedly working to topple Bashar Al Assad. The GCC countries
Then Hagel blew up the whole thing as he exposed that it was a hazy strategy as it did not
spell out what will happen to Bashar al Assad. Obama and the witches of the White House decided
he should leave.
Almand | Nov 25, 2014 6:45:56 PM | 18
Obama now needs to replace Holder and Hagel with an intensely hostile GOP Congress. It's
all but a guarantee Hagel's successor will be a neo-con hawk, unless something really strange
“No one is going to be hailed to be the anti-Hagel,” said Douglas Ollivant, a retired Army
officer and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. “No one hates Hagel.”
Instead of taking pressure off the president, it’s likely that the confirmation process
for Hagel’s replacement will generate more political headaches in the near term. Those hearings
should give the president’s critics, such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the future Senate
Armed Services Committee chairman, a big stage to launch broad attacks on the president’s
policies in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine.
The next defense secretary will also have to wrestle with a military strategy in Iraq
and Syria that has halted Islamic State advances but has been slow to reverse the group’s
big gains from the summer.
Aside from the Israel Lobby, "no one hates Hagel." Interesting that the resignation is announced
at the same time that the Iran talks have faltered and Abbas has delayed pushing for statehood
in the UNSC. What a great way to make Bibi feel like he's on the top of the world.
Analysts were right to say that the Republican takeover of Congress bodes well for the war machine:
already we see the levers of power slowly shifting in reverse, eager to get back to salad days
of post-9/11 wartime spending.
But waiting in the wings, Hillary Clinton just may prove to
be what the defense establishment has been waiting for, and more. Superior to all in money, name
recognition, and influence, she is poised to compete aggressively for the Democratic nomination
for president. She might just win the Oval Office. And by most measures she would be the most formidable
hawk this country has seen in a generation.
“It is clear that she is behind the use of force in anything that has gone on in this cabinet.
She is a Democratic hawk and that is her track record. That’s the flag she’s planted,” said
Gordon Adams, a national security budget expert who was an associate director in President Bill
Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget.
Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who has spent her post-service days
protesting the war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, is more blunt. “Interventionism is a business
and it has a constituency and she is tapping into it,” she tells TAC. “She is for the military
industrial complex, and she is for the neoconservatives.”
The former secretary of state, senator, and first lady appeared to fire the first salvo (at least
in her national security arsenal) in her next presidential bid last summer, when she gave an
interview to Jeffrey Goldberg mostly on the launch of her new autobiography, Hard Choices.
In the much-ballyhooed Atlantic piece, Clinton defends Israel from charges of disproportionate
attacks in Gaza, takes a hard line on Iran in the nuclear talks, and suggests President Obama could
have avoided the rise of ISIS by listening to her proposals for arming the anti-Assad rebels in
Syria last year.
... ... ...
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter and TAC contributing
editor. Follow her on Twitter.
Nikola, November 20, 2014 at 6:22 am
Thank you American Conservative for mentioning the Clinton bombing of Serbia in the 1990s.
So many Serbs feel that Americans genuinely hate Serbia but most Americans have really no idea
what the Clintons did to us in the 90s. It’s hard for our people here to understand that here
but I do my best to explain that 99% of Americans are unaware that their government ordered
the bombing of Christian Serbia’s hospitals and schools on false pretence to secure Albanian
heroin routes in Kosovo.
Serbia was always an American ally. In WWII, Serbs saved 500 U.S. airmen who were shot down
by the Nazis in German occupied Serbia. Kept them hidden for 6 months. I suggest readers
look up the “Forgotten 500″.
philadelphialawyer, November 20, 2014
“Clinton understands that the only avenue of safety for a Democrat in the arena of national
security is to throw money at the Pentagon,” said Adams, and ‘this is consistent with her worldview
on national security. She sees military force as an essential tool and if you take that
view, why wouldn’t you want to increase the military’s budget?’”
Sadly, I think this is true. Bill Clinton, I think, appeased the military and protected himself
from the charges of “softness” that have been leveled at national Democrats since the Vietnam
era, by wasting money on the DoD and by using the military just enough to keep the hounds at
bay. But Hillary is now a true believer. She is not all for war and money for the Pentagon
because it is politic (although she does think it is politic as well), but because that is what
she now thinks is good policy.
I find it a disgrace that the Democratic party will likely nominate her. I will not vote for
her in the primary or in the general election.
NotTimothyGeithner | Nov 25, 2014 10:57:55 PM |
@23 I think the empire is bloated and lacks sufficient domestic support to cover all the bases,
and the result is the rats are turning on each other. The Village can no longer afford to pay
homage to every imperialist pet project, and they are sort of recognizing the crowds out and
about tonight are much bigger than their email petitions supporting intervention in Syria. Obama's
inner circle is done in a Clinton Administration and will have no future careers in politics
if they don't rebrand Obama. Hagel as a Republican offers no real political support given the
electorate, and the only way to rebrand Obama is to blame Hagel for mysterious and contradictory
reasons such as having cut him out almost 2 years ago and then complaining that there is no
strategy from Hagel.
No one except hard core neocons won't trace ISIS to the U.S. or at least our allies through
long term blowback from Iraq and the subsequent lack of prosecutions and arming the opposition
"forces." Every Obama henchman will at minimum will be asked about quality control.
Leaving aside the terrible human costs, the Cold War was the most cinematic of conflicts, playing
out in the shadows of occupied cities and in closed-off rooms thousands of miles away. Action took
place behind the scenes — until an absurdist clash played out in this or that corner of the world.
Some countries fell like chess pieces; in others fighting dragged on, in a painful stasis, for years.
It was a cerebral war, and a perfect setting for stark filmic landscapes of forces larger than people,
marked with heroism and despair.
A small number of bleak masterpieces captured the time best; I'll get to those in a minute. But
first, there's Vietnam. Here, in a remote curving coastline of a country 9,000 miles from Washington
and 4,500 miles from Moscow, two nuclear superpowers funded hapless inhabitants of a Third World
country in a debilitating proxy war marked by incompete country.
A year later, Francis Ford Coppola's “Apocalypse Now” hit theaters. The making of the movie was
a drawn-out war in its own right, and the ending remains muddled to this day, but few will deny
it captured in a highly stylized way the existential toll Vietnam took on America. (No Best Picture
award, though — the Academy turned to the rather less visionary ” Kramer Vs. Kramer.”) A decade
later, Oliver Stone revisited his own Vietnam service in “ Platoon.” The theme was the same
— how an immoral war ruins the men forced to fight it — and the Academy responded with another Best
The years of the Cold War saw Russia and the U.S. involved in a new Great Game, pressing for
advantage in odd corners of the globe. None of it mattered in the big picture, but when two giants
battle over a cookie in a small room, collateral damage can ensue. (The cookie generally gets destroyed
as well.) No film captured the idea of how insignificant regular folks were in that game than the
(literally) explosive “Kiss Me Deadly,” from 1955. A minor pulp novel of the era (written by Mickey
Spillane) is turned into perhaps the ultimate absurdist confrontation between man and matter. A
less apocalyptic look came in the memorable 1953 thriller “Pickup
on South Street,” in which a small-time criminal picks the wrong pocket. His prize turns out
to be a roll of microfilm, and he's soon in over his head. The classic noir direction is by Sam
In the Reagan era, we saw some films with a jingoistic flair. In the taut “Hunt for Red October,”
a Russian sub captain wants to defect to the U.S.; and in “Red
Dawn,” bellicose screenwriter John Milius took to the director's chair to film a highly improbable
but goofily enjoyable fantasy of a Soviet invasion of America.
Underlying many of these films was the threat of nuclear war between the superpowers, which of
course had been a part of American life since the "duck and cover" days. Children of the 1980s remember
“WarGames,” the highly
enjoyable family-friendly thriller about a young computer enthusiast who stumbles into the nation's
nuclear-defense bunker and learns about the "mutually assured destruction" — or MAD — strategy.
In the end, even the computer agrees it's a pretty dumb approach. In the 1970 thriller “Colossus:
The Forbin Project,” a pair of super computers, one Russian and one American, join forces to
take over the world. And in “Fail-Safe,”
we watch again as the logical implications of a nation's highly illogical nuclear-defense strategy
Once certain filmmakers began to deal with the consequences of an actual nuclear war, they couldn't
put a happy face on the result. The groundbreaking film on the subject is “On the Beach,” a relatively
bloodless but unrelievedly sad look at the sort of life survivors would face after a full-scale
nuclear exchange. The director was Stanley Kramer, at the time a highly successful purveyor of social-conscience
films. Almost a quarter-century later, in 1983, America came together to watch a made-for-TV film
called “The Day
After.” You couldn't call the film a no-holds-barred look at the aftermath of such a war, because
the filmmakers acknowledged that they couldn't present a truly accurate rendition of the result.
It would have been too bleak, they said. No matter: 100 million watched, and the broadcast caused
And at the top of the list are a small number of works acclaimed for capturing the existential
nature of this unannounced conflict that lasted for some 45 years. The novels of John Le Carré are
of course renowned for their flinty look at the bleakest odd corners of the standoff; there are
two terrific renditions of one of his most popular novels, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,” one
a BBC miniseries from
1979 with Alec Guinness as Le Carré's George Smiley, and
a feature film in 2011
with Gary Oldman in the lead role. Both capture with a gimlet eye the moral decrepitude that the
war created. Carol Reed, the great British director, captured a similar process in much more expressionistic
fashion in his classic U.K. noir, “The Third Man,” with an unforgettable Orson Welles leading Joseph
Cotton — and the viewer — into a moral cesspool in Vienna.
Another Cold War classic is “The Manchurian Candidate,” from 1962. John Frankenheimer, a master
of politically themed films, directed the movie in striking black and white. The story — which
involved the brainwashing of an American soldier — played on our paranoia about Communist plots.
The film was also strikingly prophetic, involving as it did a disturbed assassin only slightly removed
from the circumstances that would kill John F. Kennedy a year after the film's release. Frankenheimer's
riveting direction captured the off-kilter world we were living in — and brought the film to a thrilling
But of course the greatest Cold War film of them all captured the absurdities of the conflict
better than anyone else. It, too, was in black and white, the better to lay out the incompatible
worldviews of the opponents. It was, as unlikely as it may seem, a comedy, with one man playing
three roles – a worried British commander, a harried U.S. president and a maniacal political adviser.
I'm referring, of course, to the work of the brilliant Peter Sellers in Stanley Kubrick's highly
disturbing 1964 Cold War classic, “Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the
Bomb.” The film's lancing humor (including the unforgettable line, "Gentlemen! You can't fight in
here — this is the War Room!") disguises what's really going on: Three stories of bumbling, misdirected
humanity, coming together to produce what was once the unthinkable.
Bill Wyman, an Al Jazeera cultural critic, is the former arts editor of Salon.com and National
Some very funny movies left out here: One, Two, Three and Our Man in Havana. The Prisoner
may not depict the U.S. side of the war, but it's a taut fable about belief in a totalitarian
regime, and the torture techniques the Iron Curtain country uses against Alec Guiness are the
very same nonphysical techniques which the U.S. now uses against political prisoners, most notably
Chelsea Manning. I'd swap out the later film version of Tinker, Tailor for The Spy Who Came
In From the Cold. And no Czech cinema on this list? So much wonderfully subversive commentary
on Communist regimes by Czech directors. The Fireman's Ball could adequately represent that
strand of filmmaking
Fast forward to "Wag The Dog" and its prophecy of ISIS.
From comments: ""training" is another means of directing money into the military industrial complex
which presently defines the usa.. meddling in others affairs, for corporate interests is what they do
best!!! it gets packaged with lies and whatever kind of propaganda that has to go with it which is the
cost of doing 'biz'.. the usa no longer represents ordinary people or anything about democracy..."
"Training" foreign troops seems to be some magic solution for various foreign policy problems. "Training"
a new Iraqi army against the Islamic State is the latest of such a hoped for miracles. But all recent
"western training" has been more problematic than successful.
The various foreign troops trained
at the infamous U.S. Army School of the Americas,
turned out to be
capable, but only as torturers and death squads:
Observers point out that School alumni include: 48 out of 69 Salvadoran military members cited
in the U.N. Truth Commission's report on El Salvador for involvement in human rights violations
(including 19 of 27 military members implicated in the 1989 murder of six Jesuit priests), and
more than 100 Colombian military officers alleged to be responsible for human rights violations
by a 1992 report issued by several human rights organizations. Press reports have also alleged
that school graduates have included several Peruvian military officers linked to the July 1992
killings of nine students and a professor from La Cantuta University, and included several Honduran
officers linked to a clandestine military force known as Battalion 316 responsible for disappearances
in the early 1980s. Critics of the School maintain that soldiers who are chosen to attend are
not properly screened, with the result that some students and instructors have attended the
School after being implicated in human rights violations.
Foreign officers trained over the last decade in various military "anti-terrorism" programs seem
somewhat prone to coup against their government:
The army officer who has seized power in Burkina Faso amid popular protests in the West African
country was twice selected to attend counterterrorism training programs sponsored by the U.S.
government, U.S. military officials said.
Although the training he received was relatively brief, Zida’s experience carries echoes of
other African military officers who went on to topple their governments after being selected
by the U.S. government for professional military education courses.
In March 2012, an army captain in Mali who had attended a half-dozen military training courses
in the United States led a coup that deposed his democratically-elected government.
The United Kingdom offered to train 2,000 Libyan "soldiers" to clean up the anarchy its attack
on Libya created. In a first tranche 325 were recently selected, "vetted" and flown to the UK for
some basic infantry training. Some 90 of them decided they did not want to be soldiers and asked
to be flown home. Additionally some 20 claimed asylum. The rest
tried to have some fun. Two stole bicycles, rode to Cambridge and sexually assaulted several
women. Some others raped a male person. The training program has been abandoned and the rest of
these "vetted" and "trained" gang was send home to presumably reenforce the anarchy there.
The U.S. trained the Iraqi army over several years and at a cost of billions of dollars. As soon
as that army was assaulted it fell apart. Four divisions fled when attacked by rather minor forces
of the Islamic State.
But do not despair. The U.S. has found the perfect way to solve the Islamic State problem in
Iraq. It will now simply
train a few new divisions and those freshly trained folks will then surely be able to defeat
and destroy the Islamic State.
Iraqi security forces, backed by American-led air power and hundreds of advisers, are planning
to mount a major spring offensive against Islamic State fighters who have poured into the country
from Syria, a campaign that is likely to face an array of logistical and political challenges.
United States officials say that the initial force they are planning to advise consists of only
nine Iraqi brigades and three similar Kurdish pesh merga units — roughly 24,000 troops.
The counterattack plan calls for at least doubling that force by adding three divisions,
each of which could range from 8,000 to 12,000 troops.
The United States is relying on allies to augment American trainers. Australia, Canada and
Norway have committed several hundred special forces to one or more of the training or advisory
missions, a senior United States military official said.
For the expected quality of that farce and its training just see above.
The Islamic State is currently ruling over some 4 to 6 million people. It is recruiting and drafting
among these to increase the size of its own army. How many able young men of fighting age can be
generated from a millions strong, traditionally child rich population? 100,000? 300,000? The Islamic
State has capable trainers from the old Baathist Iraqi army and it uses a fighting style that mixes
guerrilla tactics and conventional warfare. It has captured enough weapons and ammunition to fit
out several tens of thousands soldiers.
Even with air support the few forces the U.S. plans to train will be mince meat as soon as they
will try to enter areas the Islamic State wants to hold.
The "western" military model is simply not fitting to the kind of conflicts encountered in other
parts of the world. The mentalities, traditions, ideological incentives and education levels are
"The west" still feels superior to "the rest" because it has, in the past, won so many colonial
wars. But as Samuel Huntington once remarked:
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather
by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners
It was an advantage in technology that allowed "western" forces to win in colonial wars. But
at least in ground wars both sides now basically use the same technology and similar weapons. There
is no longer a technical advantage and some basic "training" does not help much to escape from an
incoming stream of hot machine gun bullets. The U.S. war of independence is a good example for this.
While the British army still could win in other colonial wars a colonial fight against an enemy
at a similar technical level but with higher motivation ended in defeat.
Any force that is supposed to grind down the Islamic State and its army needs an ideological
motivation and will to fight that is at least equal to the one of the Islamic State fighters. As
an attacking force it will also needs superior numbers. The U.S. and other "western" armies are
unable to create such a force in Iraq. The only entities which can do such on short notice are the
Iranian revolutionary guard and Hizbullah. Any efforts of "training" a new force against the Islamic
State that does not involve those will be in vane.
The recent history of "western training" of foreign forces is a history of failures and defeat.
It is stupid to assume that this time will be different. If the U.S. wants to defeat the Islamic
State it will have to make nice with its other "enemies" and it will have to let them lead the training
and the fighting. Anything else will likely fail and end up in a few decades with the embarrassing
acceptance of a new state in the former territories of Iraq, Syria and whatever other country the
Islamic State decides to slice apart.
"training" is another means of directing money into the military industrial complex which
presently defines the usa.. meddling in others affairs, for corporate interests is what they
do best!!! it gets packaged with lies and whatever kind of propaganda that has to go with it
which is the cost of doing 'biz'.. the usa no longer represents ordinary people or anything
Terrific article, Mark. I’d missed this story but it does sound as though it’s yet another episode
in the never-ending psych-op campaign being waged against Russia in the west.
The story of Russian cyber attacks of one kind or another has been running for a while now
– NATO’s General Breedlove, carrying out his main mission of expanding his organisation’s role
in the world, was the first to posit the idea that a ‘NATO for the 21st century’ could see cyber
attacks as a justification for invoking Article 5 of the NATO Charter – an attack on one is
an attack on all – so the incremental build-up of Russia as the world’s most devious hacker
is probably serving this sort of purpose.
Back to Ukraine for a moment. An iconic Kiev cinema has been destroyed in an arson attack
during a screening of an LGBT film. Fortunately, no-one was hurt. There seem to be two possible
explanations for the incident – either a protest against the showing of this particular film
or a shortening of whatever planning process operates in Kiev in order to realise the value
of the site. It will be interesting to see whether the EU reacts to this.
In the long term, the EU and US will prefer the LGBT and other marginal freakish groups over
However, instead of physical intimidation, the new coalition of AngloZionist-empowered
marginal minorities will use the law to criminalize previously widely-held values and beliefs.
This is usually done through “hate crime” laws — as if any crime toward a victim is done out
Other means, such as the mainstream media and well-funded violent Trotskyite groups may be
used against patriots as well, but this will take years, and like I said before, will only happen
if the AngloZionists gain total control over Ukraine. As long as the country is hanging between
the AngloZionists and Russia, the AngloZionists will use the shabbos goyim nationalists against
A certain Eugen Zelman is
quoted is quoted in the article. Poor guy, he’s just trying to spread some European values.
Why do these people always find me?
A very good edition of RT’s ‘CrossTalk’ on the Ukrainian elections. Peter Lavelle’s guests are
Nebojsa Malic, Eric Krauss and Dimitry Babich. At one point, Nebojsa sums up the choice voters
faced as ‘Oligarchs, Nazis and Nazi-Oligarchs’ which sounds like it covers a lot of the bases.
Not only are the Post 9/11 entanglements the longest of any war the US has been involved
in, they are also the most expensive – even more than World War II, when the US was fighting
on two major fronts against heavily industrialized powers. Rather than achieving victory quickly
as advocated by Sun Tzu, the US has been involved in very costly wars for well over a decade now.
Sun Tzu had something to say about this: “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while
defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” Seen in this light, has the Post 9/11 military
strategy made the US a victorious warrior?
While all of this is taking place, the US’ ideological foes can afford the luxury of sitting
back and employing a more measured approach:
“To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence
consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
Indeed, nothing breaks morale more than the prospect of never ending foreign wars.
And more to the point, it's because our wars are run by politicians rather than brilliant
military minds. The MIC wants the conflict to drag out for as long as possible so they can rake
in as much money as they can, just like the BANKS.
During Sun Tzu era, there was no military industrial complex, hence war was fought to steal resources,
destroy enemies and defend against aggression.
The USSA is beholden to the Military Industrial Complex. This means we will NEVER a war, but engage
in endless conflicts until the USSA is squeezed dry like a lemon.
America's ideological foes are "People that can think for themselves" instead
in a mindset of 'Totalitarian Institutions,' such as we see in US education and religion.
“The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered
by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as
equally useful.” — Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Sadly how we fight changed with LBJ and to quote him " we're not there to win a war, we're
there to teach those little yellow bastards a lesson".
A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners
openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly
whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the
traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their
face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars
of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to
be feared. The traitor is the plague.
Our traitors are the Neocons who are constantly pushing the nation to war:
Jewish writers confirm that the Iraq War was a war for Israel, not America
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish,
who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.
In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town (Washington): the
belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30
neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list:
Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer),
people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas
are a major driving force of history.
Others have a much higher estimate for just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion
The decade-long American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would end up costing as
much as $6 trillion, the equivalent of $75,000 for every American household, calculates
the prestigious Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
Remember, when President George Bush’s National Economic Council Director, Lawrence Lindsey,
had told the country’s largest newspaper “The Wall Street Journal” that the war would cost between
$100 billion and $200 billion, he had found himself under intense fire from his colleagues in
the administration who claimed that this was a gross overestimation.
Consequently, Lawrence Lindsey was forced to resign. It is also imperative to recall
that the Bush administration had claimed at the very outset that the Iraq war would finance
itself out of Iraqi oil revenues, but Washington DC had instead ended up borrowing some $2 trillion
to finance the two wars, the bulk of it from foreign lenders.
According to the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government 2013 report, this
accounted for roughly 20 per cent of the total amount added to the US national debt between
2001 and 2012.
According to the report, the US “has already paid $260 billion in interest on the war
debt,” and future interest payments would amount to trillions of dollars. This Harvard University
report has also been carried on its website by the
Centre for Research on Globalisation,
which is a widely-quoted Montreal-based independent research and media organisation.
War is not, nor will war ever be, an art form. The object of war is not to die for your country,
but to get the enemy to die for HIS country.
Dying for his "Country" is so 19th century. Now the "enemy" dies for unnamed bankers and corporations.
Truer words were never spoken. This is part of the utter collapse of the British Empire. Imperial
wars started the rot and World Wars I and II killed them dead as a doornail. Now they are a
lap dog running behind the USA begging for scraps and an appeance of mattering. Hitching their
wagon to the USA and following every order makes the elites there believe that they still matter
in the world, when in fact, they do not in the least matter in any way. They can't even control
the borders of the kingdom, which are wide open to invasions from every corner of the planet.
Pathetic UK elites!
“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” That applies to the
loser of course but also the victor, which is forced to expend substantial resources and in
the end may not get much spoils to show for it, while becoming vulnerable himself to other attacks."
But, the real purpose of war is not to defeat a foreign enemy, but a domestic “enemy”.
It is the process by which criminal and useful-idiot classes rid themselves of potential
rebels, askers of embarrassing questions, troublesome possessors of a sense of justice, or intelligence.
To accomplish this goal, tyrants do not hesitate to work up such potential rebels (male children)
into a lather and send them to the frontier to murder male children of neighboring kingdoms.
After the slaughters, tyrant involved meet for a feast, toast one anther, then retire to
their palaces to plot the next mutual slaughter.
It is, basically, the sport of kings, this murder of young male potential rebels; they (criminal
and useful-idiot classes) don’t hesitate to organize a slaughter of 20 million peasants just
to get rid of a few hundred, or thousand, potential rebels.
Sport of kings…? It’s more like a sport of Judeo-Bolsheviks, who have been perpetrating genocides
and general plunders for at least 5,000 years (historians and archeologists have documented
it 4,000 years ago, so we add another 1,000 years for its development in prior ages). Their
genocides are/were necessary to destroy as much evidence and as many victims and witnesses as
possible; thereby giving future victims little warning.
They weren’t always known as Judeo-Bolsheviks, of course; they first appear as Elamite money-lenders
and merchants, evolved into Babylonian priesthood and merchants and, with a few other name changes,
to their present mask, Judeo-Bolshevik. (See my article, Exodus #23, parts
1 and 2).
Since WWII, the US has pretty much broken every rule laid out in Sun Tzu's timeless classic.
Which explains why the US hasn't won a war since WWII.
Since the cataclysmic events that took place on the morning of September 11th
2001, an extended series of consequences have unfolded with an alarming rapidity. Between vast escalations
of military activity abroad, the passing of draconian laws, like the
Patriot Act and the
the instituting of the
Department of Homeland Security, and the ramping up of
domestic spy programs
through the NSA, 9/11 has served as a catalyst for a radical change in how America conducts
itself both at home and around the world. In the weeks and months following the incident, the American
people were bombarded with a veritable hurricane of bald-faced lies and assertions based on dubious
"intelligence". Before they could begin to wrap their heads around the significance of the events
taking place around them, their government had already set plans into motion to wage a decades-long
military conflict in the Middle East, a conflict which rages at full force to this day. In fact,
recent developments in Iraq regarding the Islamic State militant group, or ISIS, elevate the
issue of the 2003 Iraq War to the highest importance.
Among the general populace, a widely-accepted narrative has developed which attempts to make
sense of all that has happened since September 11th. Very broadly, the narrative contends
that Islamic extremists have declared war on the United States, and this alone serves to explain
and justify the long string of wars that have been waged in the name of the global "War on Terrorism"
ever since. What’s most surprising about the public narrative is that it offers almost no explanation
at all of how or why Iraq was, directly or indirectly, implicated in the 2001 terror attacks
on New York and DC. At best, the public storyline suggests only a vague connection between Saddam
Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Any substantial explanation of this tie, however,
has seemingly fallen away into the ethereal memory hole of American historical conscience.
Of the many oft-repeated talking points which comprise the terror war narrative, the question
of the highest importance almost always goes unasked: why exactly did the United States wage
war against Iraq in the first place? It is extremely peculiar that the largest-scale, most significant
conflict to date in the war on terrorism has no widely-understood explanation. Those who have paid
the highest price to initiate this war, the American people, seem to be the least informed on the
matter. It is because of this lack of understanding regarding Iraq in particular that the terror
war was ever able to get underway, and, indeed, build up a seemingly unstoppable momentum.
On this 13th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, which initiated
the drive for war, it is vital to return to these basic questions. How did this happen? Who was
involved? What justifications were given to go into Iraq in the first place? After more than a decade,
the American people still cannot provide firm answers to such questions. To understand the broader
war on terror, and how it came to dominate American foreign policy, it is necessary to fill in the
blanks of the official narrative, as well as overturn some of the prevailing falsehoods about Iraq,
WMDs, and its connection to al-Qaeda.
In basic terms, the official US government justification for the Iraq War goes something like
this: Saddam Hussein was a material supporter of terrorist groups like
– particularly the Islamic militant
Abu Musab Zarqawi
– offering safe harbor and/or training facilities for them in Iraq. On top of this is the related
claim that Hussein was actively pursuing "weapons
of mass destruction," using "mobile
bio-weapons labs," as well as "aluminum
tubes" for centrifuges in a reconstituted
nuclear weapons program. In his alleged link to militant Islam – and his ties to Palestine in the
case of Zarqawi, a Jordan-born Palestinian – Saddam was said to have planned to provide Iraq’s weapons
to terrorists, who would act as his proxies. For these reasons, Iraq was said to be a threat to
its neighbors, and a threat to the United States. These claims are officially stated in a 2002
National Intelligence Estimate
(NIE), but also informally circulated in TV and print news media in the run up to the war.
While the Bush Administration explicitly
refrained from directly accusing
Saddam of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, they were certainly happy to let the American people believe
there was a direct connection between the two. After all, many thought, why would the US ever wage
a war against Iraq, seemingly as a result of 9/11, if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Due to the
disjointed and incoherent Administration narrative, and the mainstream media’s
speculate on all matters pertaining to 9/11, Iraq, and terror, the American people were left
to rationalize and put two-and-two together on their own,
that Saddam and September 11th were related.
The only explicit attempt to tie 9/11 to Iraq was in the claim that lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammad
Atta, made contact with Iraqi intelligence at a
meeting in Prague.
Later, additional allegations derived from "Israeli security sources" assert that an Iraqi agent
furnished Atta with an "anthrax flask"
at the same meeting. Some suggested also
that Iraq was involved in the 2001
that took place shortly after 9/11, targeting media outlets as well as Senators Patrick Leahy and
Thomas Daschle (who
coincidentally, happened to oppose
the invasion of Iraq). All the talk of anthrax, no matter how baseless, ultimately helped to terrorize
the American people and warm them up to the idea of war with Iraq. Finally, but no less important,
we have the documents, curiously supplied by an Italian intelligence agency (SISMI), which were
claimed to prove Saddam’s attempt to procure 500 tons of
yellowcake uranium from Niger.
Sprinkle in a little Wilsonian talk of "spreading
you’ve got yourself a war.
As we shall see, absolutely none of the casus belli presented to the American people had
any resemblance to reality. Through a complex network of government officials – primarily connected
to the Pentagon and the office of the Vice President – media pundits and journalists – such as
others at the
New York Times,
PNAC crowd at the
Weekly Standard – as well as foreign sources –
Iraqi ex-pats as well as Italian
and Israeli intelligence – the Iraq War was set off without a hitch; built upon, in the
Colin Powell, a "web
An essential link in the chain was the Pentagon-created
Office of Special Plans
(OSP). Established in 2002, this agency lies at the very heart of the War Party push to invade Iraq.
Through this Office, headed by Abram Shulsky
under the authority of Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, "intelligence" was funneled into
important or influential places, such as the office of Vice President Cheney via his Chief of Staff,
Louis "Scooter" Libby. In one case, information
was even directly leaked by Douglas Feith
to Bill Kristol’s neocon rag,
the Weekly Standard, demonstrating, in part, the state-media complicity in misleading the
American people. Additional players linked to the OSP, to name only a few, include
NESA bureau head William Luti, Defense
Policy Board members
Richard Perle and former Republican Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich, as well as neocon Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, whose prior
informal intelligence activity
with Feith was officially codified in the creation of the OSP. Its primary task was to dig through
raw intelligence agency information, unaccompanied by the judgment of a professional analyst, in
order to ham-fistedly piece together official justifications for war.
According to retired U.S. Air Force
Lieutenant Colonel and former Pentagon desk officer Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked closely with senior
Pentagon staff such as William Luti, higher-up officials in the OSP were "willing to exclude or
marginalize intelligence products that did not fit the agenda." To that end, information disseminated
from this office was carefully cherry-picked and highly exaggerated, with much of it gleaned from
the Iraqi expat group the Iraqi National
Congress (INC). Presiding over the INC was Ahmed Chalabi, essentially a
double agent for the Ayatollah, who temporarily served a vital purpose for his neo-conservative
Chalabi dazzled neocons with talk of a future "Hashemite Kingdom" in Iraq (referring to
Jordan; diplomatically and economically
friendly with Israel). He was selected by administration war hawks
as early as the Gulf War
to lead the Iraqi political march to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Exiled from Iraq, and a
convicted bank fraudster,
Chalabi weaseled his way into
position in the post-Saddam Iraqi state after helping the Bush Administration successfully bamboozle
their way in. Later on, to the horror of his former US colleagues, his
were discovered, revealing an epic
betrayal of the War Party in favor of his long-held Iranian connections. As an influential figure
among pro-war ideologues, Chalabi was able to carefully sway events to Iran’s benefit in ways which
his neocon handlers were oblivious of. Despite this double-cross, it was Chalabi and his INC
"heroes in error" who provided many of the intelligence sources that were vital in the push
for invasion. For example, in a
New York Times piece by Judith Miller, she cites a meeting, arranged by the INC, with
an "Iraqi defector," claiming there to be "renovations at sites for chemical and nuclear arms" in
Saddam’s Iraq. With the popular news media parroting the government’s claims, it helped to quickly
move along the pro-war policy.
In the end, nothing regarding the claims of "aluminum
tubes," initially insisted on by the CIA’s
was true. The same goes for the "arms sites" and "mobile
weapons labs," both of which were
sourced from Iraqi defectors.
All of these talking points were, as well, used in Colin Powell’s
the United Nations in February of 2003, a speech which was crucial in the green-lighting of the
to invade Iraq. The lies in that speech, as well as the ones told in the 2002 NIE cited above, are
officially debunked by a
2004 Senate Report (download PDF in link) which cites intelligence community conclusions on
the various fraudulent claims. None of the information used to bolster the WMD story held any weight,
and a large portion of the US intelligence community had said so all along. This was not just a
big mistake, it was intelligence
deliberately concocted, or
presented wildly out of context, in order to send the nation (back) to war, to finish the job started
in the 1991 Iraq conflict.
Official skepticism toward Bush Administration claims of Saddam’s weapons, as well as his ties
to terror is illustrated the leaked
UK intelligence documents, known as the "Downing Street
Memos". These memos depict high-ranking UK officials expressing concern over whether the Administration
was "fixing" intelligence around a pro-war policy, rather than a policy around intelligence. Before,
during, and after the war, there were a
intelligence sources, as well as a fairly large body of
journalism, which conveyed deep
toward the dubious pro-war talking points. There certainly were dissenting voices in the lead up
to the war; these voices simply went unheeded and unheard, at least until after the invasion.
The mainstream media chose, instead, to create an echo chamber for the flurry of false claims emanating
from the Bush Administration and the
of neo-conservatives in high office
or positions of public influence.
Also proven false
in the 2004 Senate Report are the allegations of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium
from the Nigerian government in 1999-2000. The documents
passed along from Italian intelligence, in fact, turned out to be the crudest of
From October of 2002 to March of 2003, the CIA, as well as the
doubts about the
information contained in the documents, yet this didn’t stop President Bush from invoking it in
of the Union address of January 2003. Indeed, the CIA’s skepticism was either
discounted or completely circumnavigated in order to push this particular piece of intelligence.
Of much interest here is the 2005 La Republica exposé
which explores the antics of one Rocco Martino, an Italian peddler of information who worked with
Italian, and at times French, intelligence. Martino and a number of associates, looking for a quick
way to make money, were able to use various intelligence assets to attain access to outdated Nigerian
documents. Using official stamps and letterhead stolen from the Nigerian Embassy in Rome, this group
of rapacious rogues crudely pieced together the stale documents to create the forgery, which they
hoped to sell. They were initially handed off to SISMI and to the French, who quickly saw them for
what they were. But much changed after 9/11 and the Bush Administration’s mad scramble for Saddam-WMD
intelligence. At this point, SISMI finds new willingness to share the documents with the CIA station
in Rome, while Martino gives them over to British MI6. The information makes its way to the Bush
Administration, where it is eventually used in the 2003 SOTU address in the form of sixteen ambiguous
words. Following the rest of this story,
with its possible ties to a police sting, Iran, Israel, and Michael Ledeen, will lead us down
quite a deep
rabbit-hole, which due to space limitations simply cannot be elaborated on here.
Finally it should also be briefly noted that the more recent
scandal involving the
of undercover agent Valerie Plame is heavily
related to her husband’s
investigation of the forged
Niger documents. The Wilson-Plame Niger investigation clearly probed
too close to the truth, leading to an attempted career assassination at the
behest of powerful
Another key example of botched intelligence is the claim of the meeting in Prague between Mohammad
Atta and Iraqi intelligence, as well as the later attempt to link this meeting with anthrax. The
Prague meeting was initially
by Czech officials, although there were various
conflicting accounts, where different Czech officials deny the meeting ever happened. An interesting
parenthetical note, when Dick Cheney cited these reports in a TV
to confirm the 9/11-Iraq tie, he refers to "Czechoslovakia,"
a country which had not existed since Czech-Slovak split in 1993. This certainly could have been
a simple slip of the tongue, but it seems that, assuming Cheney himself had seen the Czech report,
it’d be fresh enough in his mind to at least get the country’s name right!
Mark Rossini, a former FBI counter-terrorism agent given the task of analyzing the Czech report
on the Prague meeting,
reaction to the Cheney interview: "I remember looking at the TV screen and saying, ‘What did I just
hear?’ And I–first time in my life, I actually threw something at the television because I couldn’t
believe what I just heard." A 2006
Select Committee on Intelligence report repeats this conclusion, held among US intelligence
circles, that the Prague meeting was dubious at best, definitely not solid enough base a military
invasion on. Since this meeting likely
occurred, there is no need to provide further evidence to disprove the claim, sourced from "Israeli
security," that a flask full of anthrax was given to Atta during the meeting.
Aside from the Prague-anthrax connection, further attempts were made to link the anthrax-letter
attacks to both the 9/11 hijackers and, again, to Iraq. The
letters themselves contained messages that
were so deliberately suggestive of hijacker involvement that it strikes one as suspicious, proclaiming
"09-11-01, this is next," and "Death to America, death to Israel."
Bryan Ross at ABC repeatedly said, with
increasing degrees of certainty, that it was very likely from Saddam Hussein’s anthrax program.
He sourced three or four unnamed "well placed people," which if true might suggest that Ross was
purposely mislead by government agents who wished to anonymously disseminate false information.
Despite the massive
FBI probe into the case, no definitive answers were ever provided as to who was responsible.
The total incompetency of the FBI, however, didn’t stop
independent journalists from delving into the case themselves. From these investigations came
a series of very strange discoveries, not the least of which was the likelihood that the specific
anthrax strains used in the letter-attacks originated in
US Army labs!
Although two different
people were selected as "fall-men,"
the baseless accusations against neither of them stuck. The second of the two, one Dr. Ayaad Assaad,
an Egyptian-American scientist, worked at the Fort Detrick facility from which samples of anthrax,
among other dangerous biological compounds, went missing years before the letter-attacks. In later,
seemingly unrelated, events at Fort Detrick, Dr. Assaad’s colleagues, primarily a group led by a
man named Phillip Zack,
engaged in bizarre and juvenile harassments against him. This same Phillip Zack was a
suspect in a 1992 internal
Army inquiry, thought to be making unauthorized access, by cover of night, to a biological compounds
lab, where pathogens like anthrax, Ebola, and the Hanta virus had gone missing.
Moreover, in late September 2001, an
anonymous letter sent to the FBI in Quantico, Virginia alleging that Dr. Assaad was behind a
terrorist plot to use biological agents in the United States. This accusatory letter was sent
after the anthrax-letters were mailed, but before they were discovered to contain anthrax.
This suggests that some third-party, somebody other than Dr. Assaad, had foreknowledge of the attacks.
Tying things together, in the missive accusing Assaad it is also stated that the author had formerly
worked with him, demonstrating fairly extensive knowledge of Assaad’s career at USAMRIID.
Although the true culprits of the 2001 anthrax-letter attacks remain a mystery, this highly peculiar
series of events seems to suggest there is much more to the story than simply another act of terrorism
perpetrated by the same group responsible for the 9/11 attacks (or Iraq, as Bryan Ross asserted).
One might speculate that this Phillip Zack, or somebody closely related, had a hand in the anthrax-letters,
based on his suspected past unauthorized access to pathogens labs, his proven hatred for Dr. Assaad,
and the strange letter sent by an alleged former colleague of Assaad’s, ascribing the guilt to him.
is more to be
about this long
story, however what matters here is
not the identity of the culprit, but the fact that despite almost zero solid evidence pointing to
Iraq, nor to the 9/11 hijackers,
influential people in the government
and media were more than willing to accept such an event as a pretext for war; behind closed doors
with the former, out in the open with the latter.
In the end, most of the high-ranking US officials involved in kicking off the Iraq invasion have
out to admit there were no
WMDs, and no ties between Hussein and
al-Qaeda. While they admit they made mistakes, most of them, unbelievably,
deny they ever made claims about
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. They also
deny ever asserting there were ties between
Saddam and al-Qaeda. Needless to say, there are mountains of direct evidence proving without a shadow
of a doubt that these people are complete liars, guilty of the highest crimes against humanity imaginable.
The Iraq War has often been
blamed on faulty intelligence
alone, and for some of the people involved this may well be true. However, what’s clear is that
within the intelligence community itself, there was all along a basic consensus of the doubts regarding
Bush Administration claims. The intelligence is not to be blamed, but those who wielded it in dishonest
and outright corrupt ways.
Here they outline a plan regarding how Israel should deal with its neighboring Arab states. Working
with allies Jordan and Turkey, they hope to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of [Israel’s]
most dangerous threats." This includes countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Iran – most of whom the
US has taken an increasingly aggressive posture toward. Iraq also is said to a valuable prize, with
the removal of Saddam Hussein from power a priority. Indeed, for many years,
long before 9/11, this very
same group of hardline Israel-firsters sought to influence American policy toward war with
Iraq as well, in large part to serve Israeli interests, alongside
ones. The 9/11 attacks were obviously used as justification to execute this plan, to get a regime
change in Iraq. To these neocons, American and Israeli state-security interests are one in the same,
certainly regarding Iraq, as well as the aggressive Zionism (illustrated in the "Yinon
Plan") which characterizes Israeli policy, both domestic and foreign.
This incestuous neocon-Israeli involvement in the crafting of state-policy should, of course,
come as no surprise. This is a
well-known phenomenon, not any sort of speculative conspiracy fringe. Israel not only has long-standing
ties with influential conservative movers-and-shakers in the foreign policy field, but also a history
of deceptive and outright murderous behavior all around. From the decades of
occupation of the Palestinian people, the
Israeli spying on
American institutions, the
of Israeli (or Israel-related, through AIPAC) theft of sensitive US
intelligence-related secrets, the theft of
uranium in the 1950s to build nuclear bombs with, to their deliberate attempt to sink the
USS Liberty in June of 1967, Israel has quite
a deranged history indeed.
As with most matters of policy, the Iraq War was certainly not pushed by only one single set
of interests. Things aren’t so simple. The Israel-first neocon crowd had a very important role to
play, but in the end this was a confluence of many inter-locking interest groups. Political campaigning,
military-industrial interests, oil, and, especially in the case of Bush Jr., personal ambition;
these also were part of the incentive-structure for a pro-war policy. All of the people responsible
for this war did not necessarily have to be unified in a grand conspiracy in order to push for the
same policy-objective. Indeed, it just goes to show the way in which disparate and varying interest
groups can come together in agreement where their individual motivations and values meet. It is
sometimes easy to ascribe a collective agency to government actors, but these are still human
beings we’re speaking of here. Each individual, in reality, acts according to the values placed
on his own given ends in the situation he finds himself in.
I have hardly even begun to broach the voluminous content of the Iraq War chronicles, but this
short review should alone serve to prove the case. The United States government, or rather a
clique within its most powerful and influential agencies, sent this nation to war, based on fraudulent
pretexts, with a largely disarmed and impoverished adversary. Between the 1990s sanctions, which
lead to the deaths of 500,000 children,
one million people killed in the war of 2003, and many more millions displaced – their homes
in ruin and their lives destroyed – the toll taken on the Iraqi people has been devastating. From
1990-2012, it is estimated
2-3 million Iraqis were killed or died, due to the economic sanctions, the two wars waged by
the US government, and the Civil War which broke out during the second occupation.
Let us never forget how easily this happened, as we are faced with yet anotherattempt
to send troops to Iraq. For almost a half-century now, the United States has
constantly intervened in Iraq, and to what avail? Of all the
trillions of dollars,
the millions of lives, the rivers of blood poured into the country, it has only given rise to the
most brutal, out of control problem to date: the Islamic State. ISIS is currently rampaging across
Iraq and Syria, taking entire swaths of territory and proclaiming the establishment of a long-sought
As the United States, with its Mid-East allies the
Saudis, continues to funnel material support to the "moderate"
anti-Assad rebels in Syria, they fund and back precisely the same people they claim to oppose in
Iraq. The anti-Assad rebels and the pro-caliphate jihadists are, in many cases, the very same militant
groups. Considering these issues, it is long, long, overdue that the American people and, less likely,
the politicians who make US policy, reexamine the issue of the Middle East, and the
long-standing practice of US foreign
intervention in general. If 50 years of failed policy, the colossal waste of money and resources,
as well as the resulting
teach us this lesson, I do not know what ever would.
At least encouraging was the strong
majority stance of the American
people to absolutely reject the notion of US military involvement in Syria around September of last
year. But for any hope to avoid future bloodshed and destruction, it is vital that we internalize
the lessons of the past. We must abandon the idea that history began last week, and always return
to the past in order to inform our knowledge of the present and the future. For that reason, after
the anniversary of the most horrific example of blowback this country has ever seen, let us never
A special thank you is reserved for independent researcher, author, and filmmaker
Both his film "War by Deception" and his personal correspondence
were invaluable. Another big thanks to radio show host Scott Horton,
who took the time to go over this essay and offer many needed resources and corrections.
Recent discussions amongst Republicans regarding U.S. Defense force structure have revealed an ongoing
disagreement between two camps within the party. Military Hawks, citing the recent disturbances
in Ukraine and Iraq, have begun to beat the drum for more resources to be allocated for the Department
of Defense to address threats that never really subsided. Fiscal Hawks, focused on budget deficits
that stretch as far as the eye can see, continue to argue for DoD to continue to be part of a basket
of cuts in entitlements and discretionary programs. While all agree that the United States needs
to maintain a military strong enough to deter the rise of competitors and preserve its ability to
respond to crises around the world, the question that remains is: how large and how capable does
our military have to be to accomplish these twin goals?
The Military Hawks’ solution is to increase spending and buy more weapons already in production
from our military industrial base. Fiscal Hawks, arguing that our Department of Defense is larger
than the next ten militaries combined, believe there is room for continued cuts before the nation’s
interests are placed at risk. Objective analysis suggests that a path exists that would allow cuts
to the DoD budget and marginal growth in the force. Such a path is predicated on recognizing that
our national fascination with high-tech weapons systems has led to a defense culture where the exquisite
has become the enemy of the “good enough.”
It has not been so long since the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pronounced that our debt
posed a grave threat to our national security at home and around the world. Projected annual trillion-dollar
deficits have not lessened the American people's concern. The Budget Control Act (or Sequester)
was passed with a false assumption that its provisions would be so painful that the Congress would
have to agree on a thoughtful deficit-cutting solution. While we can all agree that it would be
wise and desirable to escape the painful controls imposed by the Sequester, we should not give way
to election-year desires to spend more, ignoring the long-term implications of our debt.
Some compromise can be found that lowers the cost of entitlements and defense, while also increasing
revenues. The Democrats need to come to the table to address the looming crises in Social Security
and healthcare. Defense spending should continue downward to levels somewhat higher than those last
seen prior to 9/11, when the Department of Defense had an inflation-adjusted budget of $386B (we
spend $560B today), the Army had 481,000 soldiers (522,000 today) and the Navy had 316 ships (291
currently). In 2001, we stated that we could fight two major regional conflicts; today, we admit
that is no longer possible. Why has the cost of our military gone up 45 percent, while its ability
to fight has gone down? Healthcare costs have risen, and there have been complications associated
with fighting two wars, but even after factoring the current ISIS crisis into the equation, the
wartime pressures are subsiding. In the end, a major inflationary pressure remains our addiction
to exquisite platforms.
It is unwise to accept the false premise that we can only arrive at a larger force by spending
more on the same types of platforms that we are already building. A conservative approach to the
future must find the right balance between high-priced silver bullets that can only be purchased
in small numbers and low technology assets that can be purchased in large quantities at low costs.
Such an approach would be reminiscent of the Eisenhower presidency, when Ike addressed the debt
that had been run up fighting World War II by pursuing a careful balance between a smaller conventional-fighting
force and the newly emergent nuclear force, balancing the budget in the process. A Republican defense
policy today should rest upon four legs: preservation of current high-tech capabilities, increased
emphasis on the procurement of low-cost assets for day-to-day operations, modernization of our nuclear
arsenal and investment in the research and development of new technologies to guarantee American
leadership after our fiscal house is put in order.
In the meantime, in a world beset with constant turmoil, the phrase “quantity has a quality all
its own” takes on new meaning. The United States simply cannot be everywhere that it needs to be
with the high-cost, low-numbers military it currently plans, and Republicans cannot simply choose
to deficit spend on defense or any other programs they admire. All government spending must be constrained.
The turning point on defense will occur when we recognize that spending less money does not have
to equate to a smaller force. Wise leaders have a credible alternative in defense-force structure
and should pursue it.
An article of the quality that I have come to expect from the national interest. Concise,
accurate and perceptive.
The US overspends on defense. We currently posses a military with the capability of taking on
the world. I believe we can all agree that level of readiness is not needed.
The balance between spending on defense and social programs is at its heart a political decision.
My preference for the level of defense spending perfectly aligns with the author's. Inflation
adjusted to pre-9/11 funding. The US is currently facing what threats? A cautions and sometimes
belligerent China? A corpse of a nation in Putin's Russia, sporting a national GDP on the other
side of California's? ISIS, with its ragtag bunch of poorly equipped fighters numbering 25K
strong? Not a lot of threat out there folks.
I do disagree somewhat about US health care spending. There is actual hope that health care
spending will level off soon. Market competition is increasing dramatically in that sector,
thanks to the ACA.
From comments: "Finally, Stephen Walt is telling what we all need to hear. Victoria Nuland
is utterly incapable of thinking her action in the long run. Obama is not much better by sending
CIA Director to a troubled country. Kissinger also lament NATO has expanded its role and mission.
It has participated too many wars. In pursuit of glory, NATA has transformed from a defense mechanism
to an offense tool. As it expands, there should be more conflicts ahead. Military power
is effective to intimidate but not a solution to a political problem. Think Transnister.
Does NATO have a solution?
Russia's aggression in Ukraine is making it easier for the bloated, aging alliance to pretend
that it still matters.
If I were really cynical, I'd suspect some bureaucrats at NATO headquarters in Brussels are secretly
glad about the crisis in Ukraine. Why? Because it gives the aging alliance something to do. This
motive may also explain why hawkish Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen seems eager to defend
Ukraine right down to the last Ukrainian and why the NATO membersthat lie closest to Russia
are both worried by recent events and pleased that the rest of the alliance is finally paying attention
to their concerns.
In fairness, NATO's survival after the Cold War remains something of an anomaly. Alliances normally
arise in response to threats,
and many previous alliances collapsed quickly once the external danger was gone. Mindful of this
tendency, NATO's proponents have been searching for a convincing rationale for its continued existenceever since the Berlin Wall fell. But their efforts have been mostly stillborn; despite annual
summits, earnest communiqués, and a lot of brave rhetoric, the alliance's capabilities, importance,
and coherence have been visibly declining
for two decades.
Things might have been different if the various "out-of-area" missions NATO took on had gone
swimmingly, but they didn't. The Bosnian intervention in 1995*
and the war in Kosovo in 1999 were at best partial successes; they took longer, cost more, and produced
more ambiguous results than NATO's defenders like to admit. NATO's efforts in Afghanistan have been
mostly a failure, and no member of the alliance wants to do anything like that again. The Libyan
debacle now looks like a monument to Western hubris, even though its architects remain
to admit just how wrong they were. The United States has been trying to "rebalance" to Asia
in recent years -- an arena where NATO has
little role to play -- and has been coping with the aftermath of George W. Bush's foolish attempt
to "transform" the Middle East.
Until the Ukraine crisis arose, NATO looked like a nearly extinct dodo
that had somehow managed to last into the 21st century.
Until the Ukraine crisis arose, NATO looked like a nearly extinct dodo
that had somehow managed to last into the 21st century.
Yet NATO survived. This is partly because the alliance was heavily institutionalized, and
no bureaucracy goes out of business without a fight. Its persistence also gave the United States
some residual leverage in Europe and allowed Washington to pretend that its activities elsewhere
had broad international support. Military bases in Europe and a long history of cooperation also
facilitated U.S. interventions in other areas and didn't require Europeans to do much in return.
Finally, liberal internationalists embraced NATO (and EU) expansion as a way to spread democratic
institutions and values into the former Soviet empire, toward the ever-elusive goal of "one Europe,
united and free."
But as George Kennan, Michael Mandelbaum, and other experts warned in the 1990s, NATO expansion
turned out to be a fundamental strategic misstep. It alienated Russia without making NATO stronger;
on the contrary, expansion involved extending security guarantees to mostly weak countries that
would be the hardest to defend should Russian power ever recover. Instead of sticking with the early
for Peace, an initiative that provided many of the same benefits as NATO expansion -- including
military-to-military contacts, security dialogue, and support for civil society -- but also includedRussia, Washington succumbed to hubris and decided to add to its defense burdens without getting
much in return.
Undertaken, like the old British Empire, in a "fit of absentmindedness," NATO expansion rested
on the assumption that these various guarantees would never need to be honored. It was not until
the brief Russo-Georgian war of 2008 that a few Washingtonians (and a larger number of Europeans)
begin to recognize that these commitments might actually involve some cost and risk. But by then
it was too late, because any challenge in Eastern Europe would be seen as a test of U.S. credibility
and NATO's resolve. Needless to say, this is precisely how most people -- including President Barack
Obama, who has called the Ukraine crisis a "moment
of testing" -- are now interpreting the tussle over Ukraine.
Yet even the current crisis cannot fully reconcile NATO's fundamental strategic problems. Even
if one adopts a worst-case view of Russian intentions, today's Russia is nowhere near as threatening
as the old Soviet Union. The USSR was a continent-sized superpower with a larger population than
the United States and an economy roughly half as large; today's Russia is smaller and less populous,
and its economy is roughly one-fifth the size of America's. The USSR outspent the United States
on defense during most of the Cold War, but Russia today is a
pipsqueak by comparison. Its only appealing products are oil, natural gas, and raw materials,
and it no longer boasts an ideology that can rally supporters worldwide. It can be a regional spoiler
and a local troublemaker, but it is not and will never again be a true peer competitor.
These realities also mean that Russia does not threaten the vital interests of most of Europe
or the United States. It is a genuine threat to Ukraine's well-being, and it is also a potential
problem for the small Baltic states, but Europe no longer has to worry about 90-plus divisions massing
on the inter-German border. That's a very good thing, but the lack of a serious strategic threat
is also why NATO has trouble marshaling the level of coherence and commitment that it did during
the Cold War.
In fact (and in sharp contrast to the post-World War II period), Europe now has the latent wherewithal
to deal with the Russian bear all by itself, if only it could get its act together. NATO's European
members are notoriously reluctant to spend money on defense or create effective military forces,
but it's not because they lack the basic resources. Even today, NATO Europe spends
four times more on defense each year than Russia does. If these states were really worried,
you'd think they would coordinate their activities more effectively, devote more money to the problem,
and spend the existing amounts more efficiently, instead of maintaining militaries that are long
on creature comforts and short on fighting capacity
The real challenge NATO faces is the classic dilemma of collective action, made all the worse
by the modest nature of the threat to which NATO is now trying to respond. This problem is why NATO's
new members are working overtime to convince others -- and especially Americans over in the Western
Hemisphere -- that Russian President Vladimir Putin is History's Greatest (or Latest) Monster. If
you're Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, or even Polish, you don't want to rely on British or French
or Spanish help if trouble arises with Moscow. You want to make sure the White House is on your
side, and you want hotheads like Joe Biden and John McCain calling for the United States to do everything
it can. So these states (and countries like Georgia) spend a lot on lobbying politicians in Washington
in order to convince Americans to care as much about their homelands as they do.
Unfortunately, the history of the past 50 years tells us that the more security Uncle Sam provides
to others, the less the recipients will do for themselves. Confirmed Atlanticists like the late
Richard Holbrooke liked to say that the United States was a "European
power," but a momentary glance at the globe shows you that this is nonsense.
America is located in the Western Hemisphere, folks, and the extent
of its interests in Europe depend on circumstances.
America is located in the Western Hemisphere, folks, and the extent of
its interests in Europe depend on circumstances. When a peer competitor emerges and threatens
to dominate the continent, then America's vital interests are fully engaged. When no such rival
exists (or when potential peer competitors
are located elsewhere), U.S. interests are much reduced. Everybody knows or suspects this, of course,
no matter how fervently U.S. officials proclaim their undying support for areas where few vital
So what will NATO do at this week's summit? It has already announced plans for a new
rapid-reaction force, and Obama has delivered a
typically stirring speech pledging U.S. support for all the countries that managed to get themselves
into the alliance before anyone thought too hard about the wisdom of this step. There will be the
usually pious declarations about enhancing defense capabilities, and a new set of exercises will
be planned, provided they don't cost too much. But eventually the war fever will break, and NATO
Europe will return to its enfeebled military condition and diplomatic disarray.
Meanwhile, what about Ukraine? In theory, NATO could make a real contribution by forming a united
front in favor of genuine diplomacy, something Germany seems
especially eager to pursue. By "diplomacy," I mean a process of principled but flexible bargaining
whose goal is to resolve the current crisis in a way that gives the various parties what they most
need, instead of trying to obtain everything they might occasionally dream about. That process
has to begin by recognizing that 1) Russia sees Ukraine's political alignment as a vital interest,
2) it has various cards to play to advance its goals, and 3) it is willing to wreck the country
to prevent it from joining the West. You don't have to like those facts -- who would? -- but effective
statecraft must begin by acknowledging unpleasant realities. As with most diplomatic efforts, the
United States and Europe aren't going to get everything they want and should concentrate instead
on getting what is most important.
As I've said before, the best possible outcome here is an agreement that reaffirms Ukraine's
independence and sovereignty, ends the fighting, removes any Russian troops on Ukraine's territory,
and guarantees Ukraine's status as a neutral buffer state. The status of Crimea is trickier, and
I fear it won't be possible to get Russia to disgorge it. We may have to accept that change as the
price Ukraine and the West must pay for our
prior carelessness. To advance the ball, NATO's leaders should support Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko while simultaneously discouraging him from upping his demands. In particular, they should
make it clear that their support is conditional on Ukraine cutting a reasonable deal. It's a bit
like the conditional support the United States provides to Taiwan: The United States will defend
that country if its independence is threatened by external military action, but all bets are off
if Taiwan provokes trouble by crossing Beijing's "red lines."
Is this a perfect result? Hardly. But it is a lot better than prolonging the crisis, which will
damage the still-fragile EU economy, poison East-West relations even further, and do further harm
to Ukraine itself. I see little evidence that U.S. officials are thinking along these lines, but
perhaps some of America's European partners can convince them otherwise. Isn't that what summit
meetings are for?
Finally, Stephen Walt is telling what we all need to hear. Victoria Nuland is utterly
incapable of thinking her action in the long run. Obama is not much better by sending
CIA Director to a troubled country. Kissinger also lament NATO has expanded its role and
mission. It has participated too many wars. In pursuit of glory, NATA has transformed
from a defense mechanism to an offense tool. As it expands, there should be more conflicts
ahead. Military power is effective to intimidate but not a solution to a political problem.
Think Transnister. Does NATO have a solution?
This article provides a good realist perspective with regard to Ukrain crisis and it has similar
arguments with Mearshimer's article on foreign affairs.
@bulentkoremez My complaint with Mearshimer's article is that it is entirely about relations
between Great Powers and barely mentions the wishes of the Ukrainian people. They were the one
who started this crisis by clearly choosing to look westward rather than eastward. Ignoring
Ukrainian wishes is simply bad thinking; they will make their wishes heard.
@Terry Brennan @bulentkoremez Either you did not read Mearshimer's article, or missed this:
"One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally
with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This a dangerous
way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often
makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination
are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba
have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union" during the Cold War? The
United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine
joining the West. It is in Ukraine's interest to understand these facts of life and tread
carefully when dealing with tis more powerful neighbor."
Your claim that Ukrainian people started this is also disputable. Remember the V. Nuland's call?
It can be argued that the current Kiev regime represents West's wishes and not the Ukrainian
America has over 4,800 nuclear weapons, and we don’t take terrific care of them. It’s terrifying,
basically. Connect with Last Week Tonight online...
Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens:
www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: http://Facebook.com/LastWeekTonight
Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: http://Twitter.com/LastWeekTonight
Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: http://www.hbo.com/lastweektonight
The war in Ukraine became predictable when the great Muslim Brotherhood Project in Syria failed
during the summer of 2012. It became unavoidable in December 2012, when the European Union and Russia
failed to agree on the EU’s 3rd Energy Package. The geopolitical dynamics which are driving the
war in Ukraine were known in the early 1980s.
Hundred years after the shots in Sarajevo ignited WW I, Europe is again being driven
towards disaster. Hundred years ago the presence of true statesmen could have prevented the war.
Today many of the selected front figures of western democracies dress up in pilot uniforms while
they hardly have the qualifications needed for a job as flight attendant.
The handling of the tragedy surrounding the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 prompted Malaysian
PM Najib Razak to leash out at those behind the geopolitical chess game that led to the death of
the 298 on board the Boeing 777-200. Showing true statesmanship, PM
Najib Razak said:
“As a leader, there has never been an occasion as heart-breaking as what I went through
yesterday. Wives losing their husbands, fathers losing their children. Imagine their feelings
from such a great loss. … This is what happens when there is a conflict, whatever conflict that
cannot be resolved through negotiations, with peace. In the end, who becomes the victim”?
The War in Ukraine Began in Libya and Syria.
In 2007 the discovery of the world’s largest known reserves of natural gas, shared by Qatar and
Iran, led to the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project that was sold under the trade mark ”The Arab Spring”.
A joint Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian pipeline project was supposed to transport Iranian gas from the
PARS gas fields in the Persian Gulf to Syria’s eastern Mediterranean coast and further on to continental
Europe. It was this development that played midwife to the birth of the Great Muslim Brotherhood
The completion of the Iran – Iraq – Syria pipeline would have caused a cohort of developments
which were unacceptable to the US, UK, Israel and Qatar. Several continental European countries,
including Germany, Italy, Austria, Czech Republic saw much more favorably at it. Together with the
Russian gas which the EU received via Ukraine and the North Stream pipeline, the EU would have been
able to cover some 50 percent of its requirements for natural gas via Iranian and Russian sources.
It would be naive to assume that Israel was not gravely concerned about the prospect of Iran
becoming one of the European Union’s primary sources of natural gas. Energy security concerns influence
foreign relations and foreign policy. EU – Israeli relations and the influence Tehran would have
attained with regard to the EU’s position on Palestine and the Middle East are no exception to that
The US and UK were not interested in competition to the Nabucco project. Qatar, the main center
of gravity with regard to the international Muslim Brotherhood, eyed its chance to become a regional
power to be recogned with and sent a 10 billion US dollar check to Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmed
Davotoglu. The money was reportedly earmarked, to be spent on preparing the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood
for the Great Project.
An additional dimension that was overlooked by many, if not most analysts, was that the US/UK
never would allow Russian – continental European relations to be dominated by an interdependence
that had some 50 percent of continental Europe’s energy security at its heart. To explain that point,
allow me to refer to a conversation the author has had with a top-NATO admiral from a northern European
country during a day of sailing on a sailing yacht in the early 1980s. Discussing European security
issues, out of the reach of curious ears and microphones he said that (paraphrased):
”American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow
European – Soviet relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US/UK’s political,
economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be
prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe”.
It is safe to assume that the discontinuation of the USSR with help of the US and UK has not
significantly changed the principle premises of this doctrine and that it is still valid today.
By 2009 the implementation of the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project was already in high gear.
The former French Foreign Minister
Roland Dumas recalled during an appearance on the French TV Channel LPC in July 2013. (audio
”I’m going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on
other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something
in Syria. … This was in Britain, not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into
Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister of Foreign Affairs, if I would like
to participate. Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does not interest me. …
” This does not make sense. … There are some sides who have the desire to destroy Arab States,
like what happened in Libya before, particularly given Syria’s special relations with Russia., …(emphasis
added)…That if an agreement is not reached, then Israel will attack and destroy the governments
that stand against Israel”.
Note Dumas’ reference to Libya. Note that the statement came after NATO abused UN Security Council
Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya to implement the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project in that country.
The then U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Ivo H. Daalder and then NATO Supreme Allied Commander
Europe and Commander of the U.S. European Command James G. Stavridis published an article in the
March/April 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, calling NATO’s ”intervention” in Libya ”A teachable moment
and model for future interventions”.
In June and July 2012 some 20,000 NATO mercenaries who had been recruited and trained in Libya
and then staged in the Jordanian border town Al-Mafraq, launched two massive campaigns aimed at
seizing the Syrian city of Aleppo. Both campaigns failed and the ”Libyan Brigade” was literally
wiped out by the Syrian Arab Army.
It was after this decisive defeat that Saudi Arabia began a massive campaign for the recruitment
of jihadi fighters via the network of the Muslim Brotherhoods evil twin sister Al-Qaeda.
The International Crisis Group responded by publishing its report
”Tentative Jihad”. Washington had to make an attempt to distance itself ”politically” from the
”extremists”. Plan B, the chemical weapons plan was hedged but it became obvious that the war on
Syria was not winnable anymore. This, and nothing else was why the British parliament turned down
the bombing of Syria in August 2013.
war on Ukraine had become predictable from that point onwards and the timing of the developments
in Ukraine during 2012 and 2013 strongly suggest that plans to overthrow the Yanukovich government
and to aim at a long-term destabilization of Ukraine were launched after July 2012.
There was one last opportunity to turn the tide with regards to Ukraine in late 2012, during
negotiations about the European Union’s 3rd Energy Package. Relations between Russia and the EU
were stressed by a primarily British-sponsored initiative within the EU that was targeting Russia.
The ”EU” or UK/US should not accept that a major energy provider like Russia or Gazprom had the
majority ownership over both the gas and the transportation System.
On 21 December 2012 the leaders of the 27 EU member states and Russia held a summit in Brussels
but failed to resolve the issue. It was from this point onward that the war in Ukraine had become
unavoidable, which means that it was from here on, that powerful lobbies in the US and UK became
hellbent on starting a 4th generation war in Ukraine. On
December 22, 2012, nsnbc published the article ”Russia – E.U. Meeting in Brussels: Risk of Middle
East and European War Increased”. The December 2012 article stated
”The sudden pullout of the Ukraine on Tuesday is by energy insiders with whom the author
consulted perceived as yet another Ukrainian, US and UK backed attempt to force the expansion
of NATO and to drive a wedge between an increased integration of the Russian and E.U. Economies.
As it will become obvious below, it is related to an aggressive attempt to save the value of
the petro dollar”.
By February 9, 2013, relations between Russia and core NATO members had deteriorated so much
over Syria and the lack of convergence in energy issues, that Russia’s Ambassador to NATO, Alexander
”Someone here in Brussels made a most profound point by saying that if you are holding a hammer,
you should not think that every emerging problem is a nail. We think the world has ample opportunity
to engage in energy cooperation and to ensure energy security without making use of military-political
organizations as an instrument”.
There were not many who at that time understood the bearing of the Russian NATO Ambassador’s
On February 21 the Ukrainian parliament was seized by masked gunmen. The president was removed
from office in a vote held in the presence of gunmen. One of the first official statements of the
new powers at be was that the Russian language would no longer be accepted as the second official
language in the predominantly Russian speaking eastern regions of Ukraine.
The statement was bound to and didn’t fail to elicit a response that would tear Ukraine apart.
On February 22, 2013, some 3,500 governors from southern and eastern Ukrainian regions convened
in Kharkov and rejected the legality of the putchist parliament and any of the laws it adopted.
Was the tragedy surrounding MAS Flight MH17 another Sarajevo moment and will it be used to throw
an additional spanner into attempt to peacefully integrate the Russian and European economies?
Michael Emmerson, associate senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies
suggests ”After MH17, the EU must act against Putin and stop importing Russian gas”.
Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict
resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively
for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
We are now living in what we might as well admit is the Age of Iraq. The last four
presidents have found themselves drawn into that nation because it epitomizes the core problem
at the center of so many crises: the interaction between failing secular governance and radical
Islam [bold mine-DL].
That isn’t why the last three presidents were “drawn” into Iraq, and it is at best only part
of the reason why Obama is allowing himself to be dragged back in. The previous three presidents
chose to use force in Iraq and impose sanctions on Iraq for reasons that had absolutely nothing
to do with “the interaction between failing secular governance and radical Islam.” Except in the
delusions of pro-war propagandists, there was no “interaction between failing secular governance
and radical Islam” in Iraq before 2003 because the latter had little presence and no power. The
invasion helped to destroy whatever semblance of secular governance there was. Indeed, it was the
principal reason why that governance ceased to exist.
The war created the chaos in which jihadism began to thrive in the country. For that matter,
the war was not a matter of being “drawn” into the country, but of illegally invading it on a shaky
pretext. Obama entered office when secular governance in Iraq was a thing of the past, and has been
drawn back in because of the clash between a sectarian government and its enemies. The U.S. has
spent the last twenty-three years bombing, occupying, sanctioning, and otherwise interfering with
Iraq, but virtually none of it had anything to do with countering radical Islam, and this was something
that the U.S. chose to do. The U.S. wasn’t “drawn” into Iraq, but rather opted to be there in some
fashion for two decades, and it was the U.S. presence itself that unleashed and drew in these forces
as a result of the “aggressive, preventive action” that Brooks now thinks is so necessary.
Whenever there’s a conflict anywhere in the world, a gaggle of American pundits and politicians
insists that the United States fix it. Whether it's Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham
pushing weapons shipments to Ukraine, former ambassador Robert Ford
urging Washington to arm Syrian rebels, or The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol
calling for troops to
be sent to Iraq, the assumption is always that every problem is America's problem, and that the
best way to solve America's problems is with force.
Barry Posen, a professor of political science at MIT and a foreign-policy realist, advocates
a different approach. The title of his new book,
Restraint, succinctly expresses his policy recommendation. The U.S., he argues, needs
to stop trying to do more and more. Instead, it needs to do less. Or, as he puts it, "Efforts to
defend everything leave one defending not much of anything."
Posen rests his discussion on two basic arguments. The first is that the United States is, by
any reasonable metric, an incredibly secure nation. It is geographically isolated from other great
powers—a position that makes invading or even attacking the U.S. mainland prohibitively difficult.
U.S. conventional forces are by far the most powerful in the world. Posen notes that the U.S. "accounted
for a little more than a third of all the military spending in the world during the 1990s," and
has increased the percentage to about 41 percent of all military spending in the world today. On
top of that, the U.S. has a massive nuclear deterrent. It is simply not credible to argue that Iran,
North Korea, Iraq, Pakistan, or even Russia or China have the combination of dangerous capabilities
and malign intentions to pose a serious existential threat to the United States in anything but
the most paranoid neocon fantasies.
Second, enforcing “liberal hegemony”—a grand strategy of promoting
global democracy and peace underwritten by U.S. military power—is simply beyond America’s capabilities.
As the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, earlier, Vietnam showed, the United States does not have
the military resources and political will necessary to impose friendly democratic regimes upon distant
peoples. Nor, as all three of those wars also demonstrate, does it have the ability to utterly destroy
its enemies forever. Nor, finally, can the U.S. ensure, militarily or otherwise, that no one anywhere
gets nuclear weapons—after all, if it could, presumably Pakistan and North Korea wouldn't have them.
The effort to control and police the world through force of arms makes the United States less
secure in numerous ways, Posen argues. It bleeds U.S. resources, both military and economic, while
leaving the country less prepared to face immediate threats. The belief that America will act as
the world’s policeman encourages some of its allies to skimp on their own defense spending, forcing
the U.S. to undertake further costly investments it cannot afford in the long term. In its role
as Liberal Hegemon, it also encourages aggression and risky behavior in states like Israel, which
can put off peace deals and engage in provocative actions like settlement construction because of
the elaborate pledges of support it has received from America.
Rather than imposing American will by force, Posen suggests that we could more fruitfully and
practically engage the world in other ways. For instance, if the U.S. is concerned about genocide,
we could join the International Criminal Court and support the prosecution of those who commit war
crimes (including, though Posen does not say this, American officials, at whatever level, who condoned,
or condone, torture.) If we want to save people, we could honor our commitments under international
treaties and open our borders to refugees; as Posen says, we are “rich enough to receive many individuals
in such dire straits.” We could also send aid to poorer countries to encourage them to receive refugees.
Posen makes a compelling argument. But he makes it almost entirely on realist grounds. He advocates
a policy of restraint because it will make the U.S. stronger and more secure, not—or at least not
primarily—because a policy of restraint is more ethical than the alternative. His humanitarian suggestions—joining
the ICC, opening borders—are addendums to, rather than the essence of, his reasoning.
But liberal hegemony, the argument Posen is rebutting, isn’t just based on security interests.
It’s also predicated on morality. For instance, the rationale for invading Iraq was not only that
the United States needed to crush Saddam Hussein for its own safety. It was also that Saddam was
uniquely evil and that it would be good for the people of Iraq, and for people around the world,
if he were destroyed. Similarly, the continuing presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is justified
not only on the basis of protecting America from al-Qaeda, but also on the grounds that the Taliban
are hideously oppressive, especially to women, and that it is America’s responsibility to stop them
from returning to power.
Responding to the argument for liberal hegemony, then, requires consideration of the moral as
well as the practical arguments for restraint. Fortunately for Posen, the “just war” tradition of
ethics yields a very strong argument for the morality of restraint—indeed, in many ways just-war
doctrine is based on the restraint principle. As summarized
by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a
last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable
chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.
The just-war doctrine is not equivalent to pacifism, which holds that there is no justification
for war at all. But it shares with pacifism, as political ethicist Jean Bethke Elshtain
has written, the belief that "violence must never be celebrated, and that violence must always
be put on trial." Though Elshtain herself supported the Iraq war, the reasoning here suggests, on
the contrary, that preventive wars aimed at warding off the eventual emergence of a threat should
be anathema. Wars are by their nature bloody, destructive, and impossible to control (as the
spiraling and ongoing violence in Iraq demonstrates all too clearly.) It is simply not tenable
to argue that starting a war will preserve peace, because war by its nature breeds chaos and more
war. That's why war must be a last resort, and why it should solely be used in self-defense; the
only time it's reasonable to think that war might reduce war is when you're already at war.
The essence of just
war can be summarized generally as follows: first, try to limit harm, and second, treat war with
respect and fear. Dropping bombs on Libya or Iran to prevent evil is illegitimate because war itself
is evil—and it is an evil not easily contained. Treating war as a convenient tool of policy, rather
than as a last resort, sows more death and hardship, not less. Similarly, building up massive stockpiles
of weapons that are not immediately necessary creates a temptation to use those weapons—the succinct
moral of Johnny Cash's "Don't Take
Your Guns to Town." Outsized military expenditures can themselves be seen as a violation of
the principles that inform the just-war doctrine.
From the just-war perspective, Posen's realist arguments have an ethical force. Even from the
perspective of the World War II-era realist theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, who rejected pacifism and
just war alike as overly idealistic, Posen's position has moral consequences. Niebuhr saw war as
moral when it advanced best outcomes. The case Posen outlines suggests what those best outcomes
When Posen says, for example, that the U.S. cannot, in the long run, defend Taiwan, that's not
just a practical statement, but an ethical one. That’s because engaging in an unwinnable conflict
over Taiwan—possibly unleashing nuclear war in a lost cause without a self-defense rationale—is,
on just-war grounds, or even on Neibuhrian grounds, morally wrong. Similarly, there is plentiful
evidence that the U.S. cannot impose its preferred form of government on the peoples of the Middle
East. Intervening in Middle Eastern civil wars when there is no realistic chance of success is an
ethical failure as well as a tactical one. It is evil to bomb people purely in the hope, against
all the evidence, that bombing will make things better.
Restraint is also preferable to liberal hegemony from the standpoint of American ideals. Proponents
of liberal hegemony often argue that the United States has an ethical duty to spread its values
across the globe. But this argument overlooks the fact that one of the most basic foundational values
of America is self-determination. The American Revolution was fought for the principle that people
have a right to make decisions about their own fate through their own institutions. When the U.S.
sets itself up as a global policeman, it is saying, on the contrary, that U.S. policymakers have
the right to decide who should rule in Iraq, or how Iran should conduct its nuclear program. Perhaps,
in certain cases, for the security of its own citizens, the U.S. may need to take steps to curtail
the actions of other states and other people. But as a wholesale philosophy, "the United States
should run the world" contradicts America’s most basic value: that people have the right to rule
Restraint, then, is not merely a practical necessity for the United States to improve its security.
It's also an ethical duty, and a specifically American ideal. Rather than fearing America's "decline"
because we’re not able to undertake a land war in Ukraine or a third invasion of Iraq, we should
welcome a world in which the U.S. does not try to solve other people's problems by force. Liberal
hegemony hasn't worked, and won't work. The United States will be more secure—and more moral—if
it can give up its dreams of empire, and restrain its impulse to war.
Terri_in_LA • a day ago
"For instance, if the U.S. is concerned about genocide, we could join the International Criminal
Court and support the prosecution of those who commit war crimes (including, though Posen does
not say this, American officials, at whatever level, who condoned, or condone, torture.)"
US Foreign Policy = Follow the Money.
The US Federal Gov't is not primarily concerned about things like genocide when developing its
foreign policy. It is concerned about chaotic situations that can disrupt our economy. Concerns
for security almost always come back to economic security not physical security. That's why
we make the same mistakes over and over. We want to control things that we just don't have much
ability to control in attempts to eliminate economic risk. We live in fear that we'll lose access
to raw materials, markets, etc. It is why we go head long into the Middle East while we allow
wars to rage without intervention in parts of Africa. It's why we are freaked about the Ukraine.
We're not worried that Russia is going to wage an actual war, but that it might be in a position
to impact our economy or that of our allies. It's why we fear China, when they've shown no interest
in meddling in the affairs of countries outside its own region. China has growing economic clout
around the world
Until we start to discuss foreign policy in more concrete terms (What are our interests exactly?
What are we willing or unwilling to sacrifice to protect them?) rather than as if its all high
minded ideology or how these are bad guys that need to be taken out for humanitarian reasons,
we'll never stop doing things that damage our interests and are damaging to the rest of the
The gas situation in Ukraine is kind of humorous–there is one obvious choice that, of course,
is seldom made, diplomacy. Europe, the U.S., Russia and Ukraine could sit down and negotiate
a good deal. Really there is no reason to hassle over this. Russia needs security guarantees
that Ukraine will not become another outpost for NATO expansion, virtual or otherwise. Europe
needs gas and Ukraine needs a governable country. It is only the U.S. that has an interest
in causing trouble here.
The U.S. goal is to weaken the EU while appearing to be friendly thus making the EU dependent
on the U.S. which is the guarantor of Middle Eastern oil supplies and international security.
While the current administration in Washington is considered “weak” by critics it still is strong
by comparison of European leaders–and as sheeplish as Americans are Europeans, who aren’t as
profoundly ignorant about political affairs, are beginning to appear to almost beat out Americans
in their compliant behavior. Europeans must recognize that the don’t need the U.S. any more.
The Soviet Union is long gone and Russia while a powerful country, is no threat to anyone. It
continues to act, internationally, in a sensible manner, Lavrov and Putin are statesmen and
not like von Ribbentrop and Hitler even though the American propagandists who seem to dominate
not only the U.S. media but Euro media are telling the world.
The USG deliberately maintained the Cold War well beyond the time it was necessary to
feed the dominant military-intelligence-Congressional-industrial complex in the style they are
used to and has, in my view, either manufactured conflicts or do their best to inflame nascent
conflicts whether in Eastern Europe, the Middle East or Central Asia. This should be glaringly
obvious to anyone who cares to look at the record. Europe, interestingly, after following along
with U.S.foreign policy no matter how viscous, lying over like beaten dogs when Wall Street
and the City looted the financial system, now wants to create a little U.S. with privatized
everything and neofeudalism. To Euro-readers–is this what you want just so you can rest in the
arms of Uncle Sam? Fortunately there are many signs that point in the right direction for Europe
in moving away from the glories of hot or cold war.
6th generation Texan, May 28, 2014 at 10:20 am
In the grand scheme of things, the current world situation is just the latest version of
the classic land power vs naval power conflict that has replayed over thousands of years, from
the Peloponnesian Wars to the Napoleonic Wars to both World Wars and the Cold War. In most cases
the naval power has prevailed (a combination of massive hubris, greed and stupidity finally
did in the Athenians — ring any bells regarding the current situation…??)
Many analysts have dubbed the current struggle to control Eurasian resources as the “Energy
Wars”, being fought primarily over access to those riches. These “Pipeline Wars” lie behind
US/NATO aggression from the 1990s Balkan War to the present conflicts in Syria and Ukraine in
time, and cover most of the Eurasian land mass in space.
The West is decisively losing the Pipeline Wars. A vast internal network linking Central
Asian producers (including Russia and Iran) to hungry markets in the Far East, India and Europe
is well under construction, bypassing the sea lanes that the West controls via the US Navy and
its carrier battle groups. As this process proceeds at an ever-increasing pace, it will
eventually undermine the basis of America’s claim to world hegemony: the Petrodollar.
When the Petrodollar dies, so does the Amerikan Empire. The vital question: how will the rulers
of that Empire react when that moment finally confronts them? Will they slide into the dustbin
of history quietly — or take the world with them in a nuclear Gotterdammerung ?
Given their track record of making increasingly desperate/inept/psychopathic decisions in recent
years, the likely answer scares the living hell out of me.
I think many of the “America rah-rah” pundits in the west are having a hard time accepting
the fact that the USA has serious limitations when it comes to threatening Russia and China
and that the world is indeed heading rapidly towards multi-polarity. The so-called “sanctions”
the west has levied against Russia is clear evidence of their impotence in the matter.
They are so accustomed to seeing the USA successfully bully, sanction, kill and destroy
countries who are disobedient and challenge American hegemony. They’ve now hit a wall and
it’s caused many of these talking heads to blow their gaskets. I mean, how else can one explain
the numerous articles by enraged western pundits calling for a REAL military confrontation with
Russia openly in the op-eds of major newspapers? During the cold war, major American papers
would not print belligerent articles like this because it was well understood that it would
be an act of global suicide. But today we have pundits who believe that a military confrontation
with Russia can be “won” and that’s what I find truly FRIGHTENING.
That’s why Stephen Cohen recently said that war with Russia is no longer “unthinkable” and
that’s why he has such a bleak disposition on the matter. We often mock and deride the crude
ant-Russian propaganda around here but it takes on a dangerous dimension when the western elite
actually start to believe it themselves (one of my favorites being that the Russian nukes/missiles
“won’t work”). All it now takes is for them to “test” this nonsense, thus ultimately bringing
disaster down upon billions of human beings.
rober, May 22, 2014 at 10:50 am
There’s a school of thought that many of the Soviet ICBM’s were not properly maintained and
non functional. But even if every single Russian ICBM in its silo was a dud there’s still the
If this guy’s right a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia would produce
so much smoke that temperatures would get below freezing even in the summertime, crops would
die and there would be global famine.
Moscow Exile, May 22, 2014 at 8:25 am
“She sneers at the deal and says it only means Russia is desperate, Russian economy was
about to go down the toilet, so they had to go begging to China, etc. So, the deal is laughable
and should just be sneered away, as if nothing really happened.”
That’s the general line of the Russophobe comments in the UK press: sneering and mockery.
As regards nuking Russia, one such sneering moron (possibly a “modern Warfare” PC game player
with the mind of a 12-year-old) suggests that the Russian-China pipeline can easily be put out
of action with a missile strike or sabotaged by Muslim fanatics because: “Did you know that
30% of the “Soviet” population is Muslim?”
kirill, May 22, 2014 at 2:09 pm
By the same token the USA can be brought to its knees by the sinking of a few oil supertankers
transporting oil from around the world. But the media propaganda has convinced every nitwit
out there that the USA exports oil. LOL. It exports *refined* products which has not relevance
to the fact that it still needs to import around 7 to 8 million barrels per day.
Since it’s foreign policy week this week, with President Obama
delivering a major speech on Wednesday at West Point, Christie Watch will spend the next few
days looking at the foreign policy views of the various 2016 candidates, starting today with the
presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, start first by disentangling the nonsense
about Benghazi—a nonexistent scandal if ever there was one—from the broader palette of Clinton’s
own, relatively hawkish views. As she consolidates her position as the expected nominee in 2016,
with wide leads over all the likely GOP challengers, it ought to worry progressives that the next
president of the United States is likely to be much more hawkish than the current one. Expect to
be deluged, in the next few weeks, with news about Hard Choices, the
memoir of her years as secretary of state under President Obama,
to be released
But we don’t need a memoir to know that, comparatively speaking, two things can be said about
her tenure at the State Department:
first, that in fact she accomplished very little;
and second, that both before her appointment and during her service, she consistently came
down on the hawkish side of debates inside the administration, from
Afghanistan to Libya and Syria. She’s also taken a
more hawkish line than Obama on Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia.
brief excerpt that’s been released by her publisher, Clinton notes that as secretary of state
she “ended up visiting 112 countries and traveling nearly one million miles.” But what, if anything,
did she accomplish with all that to-ing and fro-ing? Not a lot. She largely avoided the Israel-Palestine
tangle, perhaps because she didn’t want to risk crossing the Israel lobby at home, and it’s hard
to see what she actually did, other than to promote the education and empowerment of girls and women
in places where they are severely beaten down. And, while it’s wrong (and really silly) to call
Clinton a neoconservative, she’s more of—how to put it?—a “right-wing realist” on foreign policy,
who often backed military intervention as a first or second resort, while others in the White House—especially
Obama’s national security staff and Vice President Biden’s own aides, were far more reluctant to
employ the troops.
In that vein, it’s useful to explore
the memoirs of Robert Gates, who was secretary of defense under George W. Bush and then, inexplicably,
under President Obama, too. In Duty: Memoir of a Secretary at War (which could also be
the subtitle of Clinton’s own memoir), Gates says several times that he and Clinton saw eye to eye.
(This has also been extensively documented by Bob Woodward, if more narrowly focused,
in his 2010 book, Obama’s Wars.) In Duty, Gates says that he formed an alliance
with Clinton because both he and her had independent power bases and were, in his words, “un-fireable”:
Commentators were observing that in an administration where all power and decision making
were gravitating toward the White House, Clinton and I represented the only independent “power
center”, not least because…we were both seen as “unfire-able.” [page 289]
Gates confirms that he and Clinton lined up with the hawks against the doves on Afghanistan:
The Obama foreign policy team was splintering. [Joe] Biden, his chief of staff, [Rahm] Emanuel,
some of the National Security Council staff, and probably all of the president’s White House
political advisers were on a different page with respect to Afghanistan than Clinton, [Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs] Mullen, [Dennis] Blair, and me. [page 350]
And Gates says that on the crucial decision to escalate the Afghan war in 2009 and then to slow
the drawdown in 2010, he and Clinton were on the same side:
Yet again the president had mostly come down on Hillary’s and my side. And yet again the
process was ugly and contentious, reaffirming that the split in Obama’s team over Afghanistan,
after two years in office, was still very real and very deep. [page 502]
And, says Gates (page 587), Obama’s efforts to centralize foreign policy decision-making inside
the White House “offended Hillary Clinton as much as it did me.”
As The Nation noted in 2013, just before the November 2012 election—after Gates had
left the administration and was replaced by Leon Panetta—Clinton joined Panetta, CIA Director David
Petraeus and the military in
proposing that the United States go to war in Syria. (That the United States didn’t act more
aggressively in Syria back then was entirely due to President Obama’s decision to resist Clinton
and the other hawks.)
And, more famously, Clinton—joined by several other administration officials, including Samantha
Power and Susan Rice—pushed hard, and successfully,
for the United States to go to war in Libya. For Republicans who’ve endlessly waved the bloody
flag of Benghazi, Clinton’s hawkish view on Libya contradicts much of the nonsense they go on about.
But for progressives, it’s an ugly blot on Clinton’s résumé. Not only did the war in Libya go far
to inflame Russian nationalism, it also created a terrible vacuum in North Africa, toppling Muammar
Qaddafi but leaving hundreds of armed militias in his stead, creating chaos and anarchy. (And, because
the war against Qaddafi followed the Libyan leader’s decision to forgo a nuclear arms program, it
also sent the wrong message to Iran, namely, give up your nuclear program and we’ll attack you anyway.)
their book about Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, HRC, Jonathan Allen and Amie
Parnes don’t provide much insight into Clinton’s role as maker of foreign policy decisions, preferring
to concentrate far too much on the politics of the Clinton people vs. the Obama people. But they
do suggest that there was far more tension between the White House and the State Department under
Clinton than is usually cited. For instance, they write:
Many of the White House aides saw the Clinton network as part of a bipartisan Washington
foreign policy establishment that kept getting it wrong. [page 143]
As background, Allen and Parnes note that Clinton’s relationship with Gates was founded in part
on the fact that both Clinton and Gates backed Barry Goldwater in 1964—Clinton was a “Goldwater
Girl”—and that Gates took note of the fact that Clinton, as senator from New York, “had made friends
with a number of high-level flag officers—three- and four-star generals and admirals—during her
time on Armed Services.” She was, Gates noted, “an ardent advocate of a strong military” and “believed
in all forms of American power, including force.” As important decisions were imminent during the
Obama administration, Allen and Parnes quote a “high-ranking Pentagon source” who says:
[Gates and Clinton] often compared notes in advance of some of those meetings to find common
ground to allow them to influence or drive the direction of policy on a given issue.
its summary of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, The New York Times suggests
that even Clinton herself has a hard time deciding what her real accomplishments were, noting that
she “seemed flustered” when asked about it at a public forum. In the end, the way she responded
was, well, meaningless:
“I really see my role as secretary, and, in fact, leadership in general in a democracy, as
a relay race,” Mrs. Clinton finally said at the Women in the World meeting, promising to offer
specific examples in a memoir she is writing that is scheduled to be released in June. “I mean,
you run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton.”
But the Times adds that, after countless interviews, it is clear that Clinton was the
But in recent interviews, two dozen current and former administration officials, foreign
diplomats, friends and outside analysts described Mrs. Clinton as almost always the advocate
of the most aggressive actions considered by Mr. Obama’s national security team—and not just
in well-documented cases, like the debate over how many additional American troops to send to
Afghanistan or the NATO airstrikes in Libya.
Mrs. Clinton’s advocates—a swelling number in Washington, where people are already looking
to the next administration—are quick to cite other cases in which she took more hawkish positions
than the White House: arguing for funneling weapons to Syrian rebels and for leaving more troops
behind in postwar Iraq, and criticizing the results of a 2011 parliamentary election in Russia.
And the Times quotes Dennis Ross, the pro-Israel advocate who worked for both Clinton
and for the White House on Iran: “It’s not that she’s quick to use force, but her basic instincts
are governed more by the uses of hard power.”
Since leaving office, Clinton has gone out of her way to sound more hawkish than Obama on a range
of issues, including
expressing skepticism on the negotiations with Iran. Some observers say that it’s just politics,
and that Clinton is positioning herself for 2016. Maybe so. But it sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton
is just being, well, Hillary Clinton.
I just wanted to mention here a topic which is not often discussed in the western press but which
does pop-up with some regularity in the Russian press. Let's set aside the current events and ask
ourselves the following question:
Sooner or later there will be some kind of state in what used
to be the Ukraine until 2014. The Crimea is gone forever to Russia, that is certain. A "People's
Republic of Donetsk" all alone like some kind of Lichtenstein but stuck between Russia and Banderastan
is most unlikely. Even a "People's Republic of the Donbass" or a "Novorossia" composed of the Donetsk
and Lugansk regions would have a very hard time surviving as an independent state. I think that
we can assume that the Donbass will either have to join Russia or, at the very least, the Eurasian
Union (Rus, Kaz, Bel, Arm, etc.) or some kind of loose Ukrainian confederation. The latter is, of
course, only possible if the USA gives up on its delusion of maintaining a neo-Nazi and russophobic
Banderastan and accepts some kind of sovereign but civilized "Ukraine" in its place. Right now there
are no signs that anybody in Washington is ready to accept that. But whatever the USA does or does
not want, there is one thing which is sure: all the successor states of the original Ukraine
will need HUGE amounts of foreign financial aid. We are not talking just about providing a few
billions in loan guarantees to a clique of corrupt oligarchs, but about fully re-building a more
or less modern country almost from scratch. This is a huge program which will take at least
a decade and will require immense resources. It will have to be implemented in an highly volatile
environment, with massive poverty and corruption, with violence prevalent and possibly with a serious
terrorism problem. The political instability of such a environment is guaranteed. So in the light
of this - if you were the EU or Russia - would you want to be responsible for more or less of that
Think about it: whoever will end up "owning" (if not de-jure then de-facto) most
of this new "Ukraine v2" will also own most of its problems. The EU plan in this regard is crystal
clear: the EU wants to own it all and let Russia pay for it all. Unsurprisingly Russia does not
agree. The Americans have it even better: they simply don't ask this question, don't think about
this issue and have no plans to own anything if by "owning" we mean "paying for". This is completely
immature and plain silly. Denying this problem will not make it magically disappear.
Now here is the beauty of it all, at least seen from the Russian point of view:
Russia has already reunited the only part of the Ukraine it really "wanted": Crimea. From a purely
egoistic and self-centered point of view, Russia could built a huge wall all along its border with
the Ukraine and declare "to hell with it all" and let all the other actors (Ukrainians, EU, US)
deal with that. I am kidding, of course, but as a thought-experiment, this is a useful one. Ask
yourself: what would happen if Russia did exactly that. Let's assume that Russian public opinion
would not be up in arms against such a decision (in reality it would!) and let's just also assume
that the (imaginary) "United People's Republic of Donetsk and Luganks" would be fine with that (it's
only a though experiment - so indulge me in some unrealistic speculations here, okay?). Let's even
assume that Kharkov, Odessa, Zaporozhie, Nikolaev and other cities and regions stop protesting or
resisting. All Russia would do is turn off the gas spigot (unless it is paid for in advance), get
out the popcorn and beer and watch the reports from the Ukraine. What do you think would happen?
Absolute and total chaos. It's either that or the US/EU would have to come up with a way to not
only put a semi-legitimate AND very effective regime in power, but also to pay a bill ranging anywhere
form 30 to 100 billion dollars (depending on how much of the problem you want to address immediately).
Now look at the same problem from the Russian point of view:
Either the US/EU agree incur huge costs which will severely damage their economies (and they
cannot afford that) or
The EU and US begin an ugly fight over "who pays what and under what terms", and
The EU is hit by a series of shocks as a result of the Ukrainian chaos (illegal immigration,
crime, political disputes), and
NATO will be seen as either ineffective/incompetent/useless at best, and as reckless and irresponsible
So no matter what, the AngloZionist Empire will suffer massive consequences for is crazy notion
of letting a huge country like the Ukraine explode right in the middle of the European continent.
To be honest, I am quite certain that Russia does not want that outcome at all. First, the Russian
public opinion is extremely worked-up about having fellow Russians attacked by a mix of neo-Nazis
and Jewish oligarchs and it would never accept putting up any kind of wall or abandon the Russian-speaking
Ukrainians. Second, as I mentioned before, Donetsk and Lugansk along cannot be viable in isolation.
Finally, I am not at all so sure that only these two regions will decide to hold a referendum, especially
after the economic crisis really hits.
Ideally Russia wants a lose Ukrainian Confederation. This confederation would have to be thoroughly
de-Nazified and would probably have to join the economic union with Russia and its partners
(if only to benefit from Russian financial aid). Russia would also want the US and EU to pitch in
its "fair share" of financial and technical support to gradually re-built "Ukraine v2", especially
considering that these two entities are responsible for breaking up "Ukraine v1" in the first place.
Needless to say, "Ukraine v2" would not be Banderastan and it would not join NATO.
As a side note, it would be really smart for the new Ukrainian leadership of this "Ukraine
v2" to declare itself not only neutral but also totally demilitarized. Seriously, what is the point
of having a military when stuck right in between NATO and Russia? Provide more targets?
As a (former and "recovering") military analyst I can tell you that by far the best defense against
foreign agression for Ukraine would be:
1) the size of its territory (geographical defense)
2) being completely demilitarized (political defense)
3) being officially neutral (legal defense)
4) being in between two rival blocks (military defense by means of "other side")
That does not require a single Hrivna of financing, looks extremely progressive, would get a
standing ovation from all its neighbors and would provide the perfect "buffer" to reassure both
NATO and Russia. And just imagine the amount of money saved which the "Ukraine v2" could use for
far more urgent and contructive needs!
Alas, that would also require a vision which is far beyond what the current freaks in power can
even begin to contemplate.
mentioned it in the past, the USA's entire Ukrainian policy is based on a fallacy cooked up
by Zbigniew Brzezinski and parroted by Hillary Clinton: Brzezinski believes that Russia cannot be
a superpower without the Ukraine and Hillary believes that Putin wants to rebuild the USSR. They
are both completely wrong, of course: Russia is already a superpower (it has now defeated the US/EU/NATO
alliance in both Syria and the Ukraine) and Putin does not want to rebuild the USSR at all. I wonder
if there is anybody in the US polity which understands who much these conceptual mistakes will end
up costing the USA. By listening to these two hateful maniacs (this is really what Zbig and Hillary
are!) the USA has completely mismanaged every step of its crucial relationship with both the EU
In the case of rump-Ukraine more is not better, more is worse; less is better. The less
Russia will have to manage and pay for the reconstruction of the Ukraine the better off Russia
will be. From the EU's point of view, however, the more Russia takes over of the Ukraine,
the better for the EU. This is even better from the US point of view because from the US
point of view the more the US/EU "own" the Ukraine, the more they will have to pay for it and the
more the transatlantic alliance will come under stress. So, paradoxically, it would be in the best
interests of the USA to have Russia take over all of the Ukraine. Sounds crazy? Maybe, but that
is still a fact.
So here is the truth: the Ukraine is not a prize at all - it is a huge burden.
That is a truth which no politician can openly state, of course.
Checkmate on all boards
But we can, and should. Because if we keep that truism clear in our minds, we can then see why Russia's
victory in this massive confrontation with the united powers of the US/EU/NATO is so total. Can
Because no matter what, Russia will have the option to chose how much of the Ukrainian
burden it is willing to shoulder whereas the West will have to take whatever Russia does not want.
Yep, that's right. Just remember the thought experiment we just did above. Russia could, in theory,
refuse to take up any further burden and declare "ain't my problem, sorry" and there
is nothing the US/EU/NATO could do about it (not to mention that such a Russians stance would completely
deflate the stupid canard about Russia being ready to invade the Baltics, Poland or any other EU
In a sane world ruled by non-delusional people the real priority of western politicians would
be to cuddle, beg, plead, threaten and trick Russia into taking over as much of the Ukraine as possible
- the whole thing if possible. Let Russia deal with the neo-Nazis, let Russia pay Ukrainian pensions
and salaries, let Russia rebuilt the entire economy, let Russia waste its energy and resources on
this ungrateful and truly Herculean task. If Russia agreed to take over the full Ukraine NATO could
even re-heat its "Russian threat" canard and justify its existence.
Luckily, however, as long as Putin is in power Russia will never agree to anything like it.
Time is on Russia's side and the worst the situation of the Ukraine becomes, the weaker the US/EU/NATO
block is, the stronger the Russian bargaining position becomes.
So while Russia cannot remain indifferent and while Russians cannot cynically get some popcorn
and beer and watch it all go to hell, Russia will continue to play a very low-key game: Russia will
stick to its principled position, it will refuse to be a party to any ludicrous solution, and it
will condemn the crazy and neo-Nazi policies of the freaks currently in power in Kiev.
Other than that, Russia will simply wait for western leaders to wake up from their current delusional
hallucinations and get serious about solving a problem which is first and foremost their
problem which they created and they will have to pay for solving.
John McCain, John Barrasso, John Hoeven and Ron Johnson, all Republicans, represent Arizona,
Wyoming, North Dakota and Wisconsin, respectively, in the Senate.
visited Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova. In each country, our allies want a stronger
immediate response to
Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its
ongoing subversion of Ukraine. They also believe, as we do, that Russian President Vladimir
Putin’s latest acts of aggression require an enduring strategic response from the United States,
Europe and NATO. It should be clear to all that Putin’s Russia has taken a dark turn. There is no
resetting this relationship. We cannot return to business as usual.
Western countries had high hopes for our relationships with Russia after the Cold War and acted
on that basis. We provided billions of dollars to help Russia’s transition from communism. We created
new mechanisms for consultation. We expanded trade. NATO committed not to deploy significant military
capabilities onto the territory of new alliance allies, even as it expanded. In short, the West
sought to include Russia in the promise of a Europe whole, free and at peace — a vision we still
believe would benefit all participants.
Unfortunately, hope of a constructive relationship with Russia under Putin has vanished. A friendly
rival has become, at best, an unfriendly adversary. Putin will not compromise his quest to dominate
Russia’s sovereign neighbors (not least as a cynical way to build support at home for his corrupt
and autocratic rule). He may play along with Western diplomats eager to avoid conflict, as
happened recently in Geneva, but only as a way to consolidate his gains, divide the United States
and Europe, play for time and prepare to push further. Western weakness emboldens Putin. The only
thing he respects, and that can change his calculus, is greater strength.
We must make policy on this basis. In the short term, the United States must
expand sanctions to major Russian banks, energy companies and other sectors of Russia’s economy
— such as the arms industry — that serve as instruments of Putin’s foreign policy. We should also
expose the most egregious corruption of Russian officials and cut off those people, their business
associates and relatives from Western economies and travel. Some of our European allies may hope
to avoid tough sanctions, but weak measures will not stop Putin, and the costs of doing so will
only grow with time.
Ultimately, Putin’s actions in Ukraine require a strategic response. This does not mean a new
Cold War. But it does require recognizing Putin’s geopolitical challenge to the post-Cold War order
in Europe and preparing for a more competitive relationship with Russia.
NATO must recommit to its core missions of deterrence and collective defense. This requires a
rebalancing of the alliance’s force posture and presence. NATO military capabilities must be increased
and more evenly distributed across the alliance, including a more robust and persistent presence
in Central Europe and the Baltic countries. Some steps in this direction are underway; these actions
must be sustainable and enduring.
We also need a
transatlantic energy strategy. Europe remains dependent on Russian oil and gas, while U.S. supplies
are growing faster than our ability to bring them to market (indeed, about
$1.5 million worth of gas has to be “flared” — that is, burned uselessly because there is not
enough capacity to transport or refine it — each day in
North Dakota alone). It will take years to align European demand and U.S. supply, but we must
start now. European countries must invest in the infrastructure to receive liquefied natural gas
from the United States, as
Lithuania is doing, and transmit it across Europe. For our part, the Obama administration should
lift holds on terminal applications for liquefied natural gas and ensure their expeditious processing
so the private sector can build new capacity for transport and storage. These actions could weaken
Putin, support our allies, strengthen the U.S. economy, increase federal revenue and create thousands
of good jobs.
Another fact repeatedly highlighted during our trip is that Putin is winning the war of ideas
among Russian-speaking peoples in the former Soviet Union. Putin’s propaganda rests on lies, but
it is effective and hardly refuted. We have all but given up on communicating the truth, in Russian,
to Europe’s Russian-speaking populations. This needs to change, and the old state-run public diplomacy
is not necessarily the answer. The private sector can play an important role.
Finally, the West must provide far greater diplomatic, economic and military support to Ukraine,
Moldova, Georgia and other European countries that aspire to be part of our transatlantic community.
We must show all of these countries that, as long as they meet the rightfully high standards for
membership, the doors to NATO and the European Union remain open and the fundamental choices about
their future foreign policy are for them to make — no one else.
The United States and Europe did not seek, or deserve, this challenge from Putin’s Russia. But
we must rise to it all the same. Our shared interests and values depend on our resolve.
To read the four newly released memos on prisoner interrogation written by George W. Bush’s Justice
Department is to take a journey into depravity.
Their language is the precise bureaucratese favored by dungeon masters throughout history. They
detail how to fashion a collar for slamming a prisoner against a wall, exactly how many days he
can be kept without sleep (11), and what, specifically, he should be told before being locked in
a box with an insect — all to stop just short of having a jury decide that these acts violate the
laws against torture and abusive treatment of prisoners.
In one of the more nauseating passages, Jay Bybee, then an assistant attorney general and now
a federal judge, wrote admiringly about a contraption for waterboarding that would lurch a prisoner
upright if he stopped breathing while water was poured over his face. He praised the Central Intelligence
Agency for having doctors ready to perform an emergency tracheotomy if necessary.
These memos are not an honest attempt to set the legal limits on interrogations, which was the
authors’ statutory obligation. They were written to provide legal immunity for acts that are clearly
illegal, immoral and a violation of this country’s most basic values.
It sounds like the plot of a mob film, except the lawyers asking how much their clients can get
away with are from the C.I.A. and the lawyers coaching them on how to commit the abuses are from
the Justice Department. And it all played out with the blessing of the defense secretary, the attorney
general, the intelligence director and, most likely, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
The Americans Civil Liberties Union deserves credit for suing for the memos’ release. And President
Obama deserves credit for overruling his own C.I.A. director and ordering that the memos be made
public. It is hard to think of another case in which documents stamped “Top Secret” were released
with hardly any deletions.
But this cannot be the end of the scrutiny for these and other decisions by the Bush administration.
Until Americans and their leaders fully understand the rules the Bush administration concocted
to justify such abuses — and who set the rules and who approved them — there is no hope of fixing
a profoundly broken system of justice and ensuring that that these acts are never repeated.
The abuses and the dangers do not end with the torture memos. Americans still know far too little
about President Bush’s decision to illegally eavesdrop on Americans — a program that has since been
given legal cover by the Congress.
Last week, The Times reported that the nation’s intelligence agencies have been collecting private
e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans on a scale that went beyond the broad limits established
in legislation last year. The article quoted the Justice Department as saying there had been problems
in the surveillance program that had been resolved. But Justice did not say what those problems
were or what the resolution was.
That is the heart of the matter: nobody really knows what any of the rules were. Mr. Bush never
offered the slightest explanation of what he found lacking in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act when he decided to ignore the law after 9/11 and ordered the warrantless wiretapping of Americans’
overseas calls and e-mail. He said he was president and could do what he wanted.
The Bush administration also never explained how it interpreted laws that were later passed to
expand the government’s powers to eavesdrop. And the Obama administration argued in a recent court
filing that everything associated with electronic eavesdropping, including what is allowed and what
is not, is a state secret.
We do not think Mr. Obama will violate Americans’ rights as Mr. Bush did. But if Americans do
not know the rules, they cannot judge whether this government or any one that follows is abiding
by the rules.
In the case of detainee abuse, Mr. Obama assured C.I.A. operatives that they would not be prosecuted
for actions that their superiors told them were legal. We have never been comfortable with the “only
following orders” excuse, especially because Americans still do not know what was actually done
or who was giving the orders.
After all, as far as Mr. Bush’s lawyers were concerned, it was not really torture unless it involved
breaking bones, burning flesh or pulling teeth. That, Mr. Bybee kept noting, was what the Libyan
secret police did to one prisoner. The standard for American behavior should be a lot higher than
that of the Libyan secret police.
At least Mr. Obama is not following Mr. Bush’s example of showy trials for the small fry — like
Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib notoriety. But he has an obligation to pursue what is clear evidence
of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners — in violation of international
law and the Constitution.
That investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John
Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard;
and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him
These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and
a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not
conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold
the executive branch accountable. If that means putting Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales on
the stand, even Dick Cheney, we are sure Americans can handle it.
After eight years without transparency or accountability, Mr. Obama promised the American people
both. His decision to release these memos was another sign of his commitment to transparency. We
are waiting to see an equal commitment to accountability.
...Like the ruins of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine has been turned into a CIA theme park
– run personally by CIA director John Brennan in Kiev, with dozens of "special units" from the CIA
and FBI setting up a "security structure" that oversees savage attacks on those who opposed the
February coup. Watch the videos, read the eye-witness reports from the massacre in Odessa this month.
Bussed fascist thugs
burned the trade union headquarters, killing 41 people trapped inside. Watch the police standing
For the first time since the Reagan years, the US is threatening to take
the world to war.
Don't want to see it happen, obviously, but for several years I've believed
the US is the country most likely to start a world war, possibly through self-interest but more
probably through the unutterable stupidity of rightwing politicians.
Beckow -> LionelKent
The coming end of "Bush wars" is scaring the military industry. Something
has to happen, they are panicking. Russia or Ukraine, maybe Iran, maybe "pivot" to China. But
there will not be peace. It is bad for business.
The "rightwing politicians" are quite stupid, true, but they are also basically
salesmen for their military industry sponsors. You know "jobs", and all that....
griffinalabama -> LionelKent
John Pilger, did you see that the US government, through the USAID program, funded
the violent coup Ukrainian government more media and press money, the day after the Odessa massacre?
....and that the Kiev Post then reported, the very next day, that the victims killed
themselves accidentally? I have attached the links for your and others viewing and analysis....this
controversial info is easily provable and needs more sunlight. The US government funded neo-nazi's
who brutally murdered innocent people and the very same day they gave the Ukrainian media millions
of dollars....that media then went on to cover up those murders the very next day.
This is an unbelievable scandal. I have compiled a large amount of video and linked
evidence of the events in Odessa at a thread at the Democratic Underground website if your interested
in taking a look. It includes videos of the full Odessa build up....including early rally's
with "Seig heil" salutes and the post fire 'victory' rally with more salutes and Right sector
saying how they stamped out the "Colorado Beetles"....Link here:
Headline at link: Police say pro-Russians accidentally set fatal Odessa fire with Molotov cocktails
(LIVE UPDATES, VIDEO)
Much of this information is readily available on the internet but for ease of use
I have compiled it all in one discussion thread at DU. Thank you for standing up and writing
what you wrote for all the innocent people who are being hurt by all this.
LionelKent -> Beckow
14 May 2014 11:48am
But there will not be peace. It is bad for business.
Yes, it would appear that men (less often women) can become so obsessed with business that
they are unwilling to consider what their activities might lead to. Like a smoker who finds
the first inhalation after breakfast so good that giving up is inconceivable (and I've been
through it myself). The irony is, of course, that a world war at this point of technological
development might put an end to business, full stop. It's my impression the rightwing mind refuses
to think about such matters. With rare exception, perhaps.
13 May 2014 9:01pm
The sooner the Chinese pull the economic rug from under the feet of corporate America
the better. Bon Voyage Uncle Sam.
fred4945 -> WhetherbyPond
Simultaneously, China will put a gun to its own head and pull the trigger.
Or don't you realize that China cannot survive economically without American customers?
Perhaps you Brits would like to go it alone, again. How many times in the last century did
we save you miserable backsides? (The world would have been a better place if we'd never entered
World War I. We should have left you and the Germans alone. Let your bloody millions lie panting
in the mud until you found a way to settle your utterly petty quarrel.)
skinman620 -> WhetherbyPond
13 May 2014 9:19pm
Say what you like against American global dominance, but I'd far rather live in
a world dominated by the US than one dominated by China. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
Britain has some pretty unsavoury history when it comes to China - history that has not been
I'd be careful what you wish for with this particular anti US wet dream.
WhetherbyPond -> skinman620
" Britain has some pretty unsavoury history when it comes to China - history
that has not been forgotten."
Thank heavens I'm an Irishman. Yes, The Opium Wars,fought at same time as the genocidal
famine caused by England was happening in my country. Well, as the man once said "What goes
around, comes around.
There's very little difference twixt the two, save the Chinese lack of sanctimony,but I think
the Yanks are worse, as you would soon find out if you were a victim of the torture chambers
of Villa Grimaldi, El Salvador, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay...........
Hat tip to Mood of Alabama. Quote: "Alastair Crooke, a former MI-6 honcho and diplomat, is just
back from Moscow and has some
thoughts on the bigger historic issues which express themselves in the current events in Ukraine."
Following five days in Moscow, a few thoughts on Russian perspectives: Firstly, we are beyond
the Crimea. That is over. We too are beyond ‘loose’ federalism for Ukraine (no longer thought politically
viable). Indeed, we are most likely beyond Ukraine as a single entity. Also, we are beyond either
Kiev or Moscow having the capacity to ‘control’ events (in the wider sense of the word): both are
hostage to events (as well as are Europe and America), and to any provocations mounted by a multitude
of uncontrollable and violent activists.
In gist, the dynamics towards some sort of secession of East Ukraine (either in part, or in successive
increments) is thought to be the almost inevitable outcome. The question most informed commentators
in Moscow ask themselves is whether this will occur with relatively less or relatively
more violence – and whether that violence will reach such a level (massacres of ethnic Russians
or of the pro-Russian community) that President Putin will feel that he has no option but to intervene.
We are nowhere near that point at the time of writing: Kiev’s ‘security initiatives’ have been strikingly
ineffective, and casualties surprisingly small (given the tensions). It seems that the Ukrainian
military is unwilling, or unable (or both of these), to crush a rebellion composed only of a few
hundred armed men backed by a few thousand unarmed civilians — but that of course may change at
any moment. (One explanation circulating on
Russian internet circles is that pro-Russian insurgents and the Ukrainian servicemen simply
will not shoot at each other - even when given the order to do so. Furthermore, they appear to be
in direct and regular contact with each other and there is an informal understanding that neither
side will fire at the other. Note — we have witnessed similar understandings in Afghanistan in the
1980s between the Soviet armed forces and the Mujahidin.)
And this the point, most of those with whom we spoke suspect that it is the interest of certain
components of the American foreign policy establishment (but not necessarily that of the US President)
to provoke just such a situation: a forced Russian intervention in East Ukraine (in order to protect
its nationals there from violence or disorder or both). It is also thought that Russian intervention
could be seen to hold political advantage to the beleaguered and fading acting government in Kiev.
And further, it is believed that some former Soviet Republics, now lying at the frontline of the
EU’s interface with Russia, will see poking Moscow in the eye as a settling of past scores, as well
as underscoring their standing in Brussels and Washington for having brought ‘democracy’ to eastern
There seems absolutely no appetite in Moscow to intervene in Ukraine (and this is common to all
shades of political opinion). Everyone understands Ukraine to be a vipers’ nest, and additionally
knows it to be a vast economic ‘black hole’. But … you can scarcely meet anyone in Moscow who does
not have relatives in Ukraine. This is not Libya; East Ukraine is family. Beyond
some certain point, if the dynamic for separation persists, and if the situation on the ground gets
very messy, some sort of Russian intervention may become unavoidable (just as Mrs Thatcher found
it impossible to resist pressures to intervene in support of British ‘kith and kin’ in the Falklands).
Moscow well understands that such a move will unleash another western outpouring of outrage.
More broadly then, we are moving too beyond the post-Cold War global dispensation, or unipolar
moment. We are not heading – at least from the Russian perspective, as far as can be judged – towards
a new Cold War, but to a period of increased Russian antagonism towards any western move that it
judges hostile to its key interests – and especially to those that are seen to threaten its security
interests. In this sense, a Cold War is not inevitable. Russia has made, for example, no antagonistic
moves in Iran, in Syria or in Afghanistan. Putin has been at some pains to underline that whereas
– from now – Russia will pursue its vital interests unhesitatingly, and in the face of any western
pressures, on other non-existential issues, it is still open to diplomatic business as usual.
That said, and to just to be clear, there is deep disillusion with European (and American)
diplomacy in Moscow. No one holds out any real prospect for diplomacy – given the recent history
of breaches of faith (broken agreements) in Ukraine. No doubt these sentiments are mirrored in western
capitals, but the atmosphere in Moscow is hardening, and hardening visibly. Even the ‘pro-Atlanticist’
component in Russia senses that Europe will not prove able to de-escalate the situation. They are
both disappointed, and bitter at their political eclipse in the new mood that is contemporary Russia,
where the ‘recovery of sovergnty’ current prevails.
Thus, the era of Gorbachevian hope of some sort of parity of esteem (even partnership) emerging
between Russia and the western powers, in the wake of the conclusion to the Cold War, has imploded
– with finality. To understand this is to reflect on the way the Cold War was brought to and
end; and how that ending, and its aftermath, was managed. In retrospect, the post-war
era was not well handled by the US, and there existirreconcilable
narratives on the subject of the nature of the so-called ‘defeat’ itself, and whether it was
a defeat for Russia at all.
Be that as it may, the Russian people have been treated as if they were psychologically-seared
and defeated in the Cold War – as were the Japanese in the wake of the dropping of the nuclear bombs
by the US in 1945. Russia was granted a bare paucity of esteem in the Cold War’s wake; instead Russians
experienced rather the disdain of victors for the defeated visited upon them. There was little or
any attempt at including Russia in a company of the nations of equals – as many Russians had hoped.
Few too would contest that the economic measures forced on Russia in the war’s aftermath brought
anything other than misery to most Russians. However unlike 1945, most Russians
never felt defeated, and some felt then
– and still feel – just betrayed. Whatever
the verdict of history on how much the Cold War truly was a defeat, the aftermath of it has given
rise to a Versailles Treaty-type of popular resentment at the consequences of the post-Cold War
settlement, and at the (unwarranted) unipolar triumphalism (from the Russian perspective).
In this sense, it is the end of an era: it marks the end of the post-Cold War settlement that
brought into being the American unipolar era. It is the rise of a Russian challenge to that unipolar
order which seems so unsettling to many living in the West. Just as Versailles was psychologically
rejected by Germans, so Russia is abdicating out of the present dispensation (at least in respect
to its key interests). The big question must be whether the wider triangulation (US-Russia-China)
that saw merit in its complementary touching at each of its three apexes is over too — a triangulation
on which the US depends heavily for its foreign policy. We have to wait on China. The answer to
this question may well hinge on how far the antagonism between Russia and the West is allowed –
or even encouraged – to escalate. Only then, might it become more apparent how many, and who, is
thinking of seceding from the global order (including from the Federal Reserve controlled financial
In the interim, time and dynamics require Russia to do little in Ukraine at this point but to
watch and wait. The mood in Russia, however, is to expect provocations in Ukraine, by any one of
the assorted interested parties, with the aim of forcing a Russian intervention — and thus a politically
useful ‘limited’ war that will do many things: restore US ‘leadership’ in Europe, give NATO a new
mission and purpose, and provide the same (and greater prominence) to certain newer EU member states
(such as Poland). Russia will have concluded that the second round of economic sanctions has revealed
more about a certain lack of political (and financial) will – or perhaps vulnerability – on the
part of America’s
European allies. Russia no doubt sees the US to be gripped by the
logic of escalation (as Administration talk centres on a new containment strategy, and the demonization
of Russia as a pariah state), whatever President Obama may be hinting through the columns of
David Ignatius. It is a dangerous moment, as all in Moscow acknowledge, with positions hardening
on both sides.
Russia is not frightened by sanctions (which some, with influence in Moscow, would welcome as
a chance to push-back against the US use of the global interbank payment systems for its own ends).
Nor is Russia concerned that, as occurred with the USSR, the US – in today’s changed circumstances
– can contrive a drop in the price of oil in order to weaken the state. But Russia is somewhat more
vulnerable to the West’s teaming up with Sunni radicals as its new geo-strategic weapon of choice.
Concept of MIC makes it easy to
We have therefore seen a Russian outreach both to Saudi Arabia and Egypt (President Putin recently
extolled King Abdallah’s “wisdom”). There is a feeling too that US policy is not fully controlled
by the US President; and that Gulf States, smelling that US ift, and open to manipulation by
interests within the US, will take advantage (perhaps in coordination with certain Americans opposed
to President Obama’s policies) to escalate the jihadist war against President Assad and to target
Obama’s Iran policy. Russia may be expected to try to circumscribe this danger to its own Muslim
population and to that of its neighbouring former Soviet Republics. But for now, Russia will be
likely to play it cool: to wait-and-see how events unfold, before recalibrating any main components
of its Middle East policy.
For the longer term however, Russia’s effective divorce out of the unipolar international
order will impact powerfully on the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia (not to say Syria and Iran)
have already virtually done the same.
The US MIC is salivating at the prospect another tax-payer funded hardware (and a lot of
training contracts for both uniformed services and mercenary outfits) give-away program. I have
no doubt that the coup gov was urged by the US to do this.
What's interesting is:
1. US wedge between Germany and Russia (Eurasian Economic Union) aka return of the US into
2. Naming Russia enemy of NATO.
3. Reviving NATO power
4. Transatlantic and Transpacific Unions (economic slavery to the US).
5. Ukraine: will "the little green men" emerge in the pro-Russian defensive positions without
radio communication activity on the Russian side which made CIA and other US military intelligence
fools for themselves?
6. Ukraine: why the Kiev thugs cry through every media bullhorn/outlet they will start military
hostilities against civilians tomorrow morning? Did Hitler published in press in advance the
blueprints of Barbarossa Plan?
7. Ukraine: how many death will make Russians to press the button "go ahead" for their armed
Here is an excellent and up to date source of information on the activities on NATO
I think that the latest economic statistics from The Real Evil Empire of Eternal Exceptionalism
may, in large part, explain the reckless aggression of the psychopaths at present. The date
at which China surpasses the USA as the world's largest economy (and without the gigantic incubus
of the USA's massive engine of self-destruction, the financial kleptocracy)grows closer every
day. I've noticed that the local ruling Rightwing psychos are growing more frantic here in Oz.
They constantly speak of China being in trouble (they have predicted that for forty years)because
its growth is 'only' 7.4%, whereas growth in the REEEE of 0.1% (minus 1% without Obamacare's
contribution)is another sign of our Imperial Master's 'resilience'. And the current hard Right
Federal regime has just had a hand-picked cabal of psychopaths present an economic blue-print
to privatise the country and turn it into a fully-fledged neo-feudal Hell of inequality and
privilege. Social solidarity zero, greedy, atomised, hyper-individualism, infinite.
As if the last forty years of neo-liberal class warfare and stagnation, boom and bust and
rising inequality was a very good thing, indeed, and we need more of it. This is where Putin
is winning, I would say. The rulers of the West are now so plainly revealing themselves as evil,
endlessly mendacious psychopaths who fear and hate all others (including one another-as they
say, 'If you want a friend on Wall Street, buy a dog'), that someone like Putin, merely by standing
up to them makes himself attractive to the remaining fraction capable of independent thought.
Which is why brainwashing sewers like the odious 'The Guardian' are screeching that RT must
be banned, and the MSM is united in hysteria in denouncing the evil Putin.
The plebs are waking up, and the Bosses are worried.
Dear saker- I agree with paul craig-there is no point of Russia thinking of anglosphere world
anything but as permanent enemy and deal with the situation if Russia wants to survive.
quote "Washington Drives The World To War — Paul Craig Roberts
April 14, 2014
The danger for Russia is that the Russian government will rely on diplomacy, international
organizations, international cooperation, and on the common sense and self-interest of German
politicians and politicians in other of Washington’s European puppet states.
For Russia this could be a fatal mistake. There is no good will in Washington, only mendacity.
Russian delay provides Washington with time to build up forces on Russia’s borders and in
the Black Sea and to demonize Russia with propaganda and whip up the US population into
a war frenzy. The latter is already occurring.
In my opinion, Washington does not want the Ukraine matters settled in a diplomatic
and reasonable way. It might be the case that Russia’s best move is immediately to
occupy the Russian territories of Ukraine and re-absorb the territories into Russia from
whence they came. This should be done before the US and its NATO puppets are prepared for
war. It is more difficult for Washington to start a war when the objects of the war have
already been lost. Russia will be demonized with endless propaganda from Washington whether
or not Russia re-absorbs its traditional territories. If Russia allows these territories
to be suppressed by Washington, the prestige and authority of the Russian government will
collapse. Perhaps that is what Washington is counting on.
In my opinion, the Russian and Chinese governments have made serious strategic mistakes
by remaining within the US dollar-based international payments system. The BRICS and any
others with a brain should instantly desert the dollar system, which is a mechanism for
US imperialism. The countries of the BRICS should immediately create their own separate
payments system and their own exclusive communications/Internet system.
Russia and China have stupidly made these strategic mistakes,
By Paul Craig Roberts
A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness
By TIM DICKINSON
October 16, 2008
At Fort McNair, an army base located along the Potomac River in the nation's capital, a chance
reunion takes place one day between two former POWs. It's the spring of 1974, and Navy commander
John Sidney McCain III has returned home from the experience in Hanoi that, according to legend,
transformed him from a callow and reckless youth into a serious man of patriotism and purpose.
Walking along the grounds at Fort McNair, McCain runs into John Dramesi, an Air Force lieutenant
colonel who was also imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam.
McCain is studying at the National War College, a prestigious graduate program he had to
pull strings with the Secretary of the Navy to get into. Dramesi is enrolled, on his own merit,
at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in the building next door.
There's a distance between the two men that belies their shared experience in North Vietnam
— call it an honor gap. Like many American POWs, McCain broke down under torture and offered
a "confession" to his North Vietnamese captors. Dramesi, in contrast, attempted two daring escapes.
For the second he was brutalized for a month with daily torture sessions that nearly killed
him. His partner in the escape, Lt. Col. Ed Atterberry, didn't survive the mistreatment. But
Dramesi never said a disloyal word, and for his heroism was awarded two Air Force Crosses, one
of the service's highest distinctions. McCain would later hail him as "one of the toughest guys
I've ever met."
On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star
admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor
a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant
corner of the globe.
"I'm going to the Middle East," Dramesi says. "Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran."
"Why are you going to the Middle East?" McCain asks, dismissively.
"It's a place we're probably going to have some problems," Dramesi says.
"Why? Where are you going to, John?"
"Oh, I'm going to Rio."
"What the hell are you going to Rio for?"
McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.
"I got a better chance of getting laid."
Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander
of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. "McCain says his life changed while
he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined,
spoiled brat that he was when he went in."
Ian Morris, a professor of Classics at Stanford, argues in the
Washington Post that, in the long run, wars make us safer and richer. Perhaps it is just
too difficult to make such a counterintuitive argument within the limited space of an opinion column,
but his piece is one big mess.
The essence of his point is that modern people are much less likely to die violent deaths (at
the hands of other humans) than stone-age people were, and that the reason for this is because we
have formed large societies. In order to form large societies, we needed to a long series of subjugations
where the vanquished were not killed but brought into the conquerers’ system. To accomplish this,
governments were formed with the primary job of pacifying their subjects through a variety of means,
including law enforcement. Therefore, war and coercion are not the evils that they may seem to be
at first consideration. He might have added religion to the mix here, but he didn’t.
One might ask why he wrote this column in the first place. Does he think we aren’t fighting enough
wars? To get some idea of his motivation, you have to read to near the end, where he appears to
compare the United States to the British Empire and suggest that we need to have the stomach to
be the global sons of bitches the whole world needs us to be.
Like its predecessor, the United States oversaw a huge expansion of trade, intimidated other
countries into not making wars that would disturb the world order, and drove rates of violent
death even lower. But again like Britain, America made its money by helping trading partners
become richer, above all China, which, since 2000, has looked increasingly like a potential
rival. The cycle that Britain experienced may be in store for the United States as well, unless
Washington embraces its role as the only possible globocop in an increasingly unstable world
— a world with far deadlier weapons than Britain could have imagined a century ago.
American attitudes toward government are therefore not just some Beltway debate; they matter
to everyone on Earth.
Why is this piece such a mess?
First, retracing the history of societal formation and noting that war and coercion were indispensable
tools in those formations doesn’t obviously tell us anything about whether or not we can improve
people’s safety or make them richer by using war and coercion today.
Even in his piece, Prof. Morris notes that war may not make societies bigger and stronger, even
in the long term.
For 1,000 years — beginning before Attila the Hun in the AD 400s and ending after Genghis Khan
in the 1200s — mounted invaders from the steppes actually threw the process of pacification
into reverse everywhere from China to Europe, with war breaking down larger, safer societies
into smaller, more dangerous ones.
In fact, he begins his piece by referencing a retrospectively naive book written in 1910 that
predicted that war had become obsolete. But he doesn’t explain how World War One made people safer
I think we can see in places like Congo, Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Iraq that the absence of sufficient
force can make people less safe and much poorer. Perhaps the people in those countries would benefit
if someone came along who was strong enough to subjugate all the warring factions and make them
live peacefully together. But, of course, these theoretical strongmen would have to kill and threaten
to kill a lot of people in order to accomplish their goals. And that would definitely not
make people safer or richer in the short term.
To some degree, Prof. Morris seems to be arguing in favor of larger societies that use bigger
governmental organizations because these bring more people together and protects them better than
smaller societies with less coercive capability. He could have made an argument in favor of the
nation-state as an innovation that brought more peace than war. But he chose to argue that war is,
in itself, even in this day and age, a positive good. War is Peace, in other words.
Bribes, mistresses, cheating on tests—has the armed forces' professional ethos turned perverse?
Popular culture reveres the U.S. military as an institution of pride and strength, as keeper
of the American moral center. But a recent series of scandals suggests that, instead, ethical corrosion
may be eating away at its very core.
Sarah Palin was in top rhetorical
form when she told an assembled crowd of thousands on the National Mall in 2010 that soldiers
were “a force for good in this country, and that is nothing to apologize for … for these men and
women, honor was never lost.” But behind the partisan politics in which Democrats and Republicans
have used the military as props, padded its budgets, and publicly deferred to its leadership in
myriad ways over 12 years of war, there lies a complicated breakdown in its culture, military experts
tell TAC. Without reform, they believe institution is headed for more embarrassment and transgression.
“The [military] system that’s evolved over the last 100 years does not test moral courage, it
does not test strength of character, or the ability to tell the truth regardless of harm to one’s
career,” Vandergriff added. “We don’t do things like that. We are looking at people who follow the
process, fall in line, don’t cause waves, aren’t open to innovation, and these personality traits
leave them open to scandal.”
Tough words, but a spate of scandals seems to underscore his point, particularly recent ones
involving a number of generals and top brass. Most notable is
Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, currently facing a court-martial for sexual assault involving a junior
officer on this staff. He is also accused of threatening to kill her and her family—and misusing
his government credit card.
Meanwhile, last month 92 officers were caught in a widespread cheating scandal at the Air Force
nuclear force. Then, on Feb. 7, it was reported that some 100 Naval instructors
have been accused of cheating on an exam they need to pass to teach sailors working on nuclear
subs and carriers.
Even more seriously, the Navy has been rocked by a sordid kickback investigation, known now as
“Fat Leonard scandal,” that highlights the dangerous nexus of high-flying insider defense contractors
and the deep pockets of the U.S. military. In this case, a top agent from the Navy Criminal Investigative
Service (NCIS) has been arrested and two active duty commanders are awaiting trial. Meanwhile, two
admirals and two captains have been put on leave pending investigation. The contractor at the heart
of the affair, Leonard Francis—known as “Fat Leonard” for his supposed girth and big personality—was
arrested back in September on bribery charges and
remains behind bars.
The charges stem from a sting operation that found Naval officers were allegedly sending Francis—a
Malaysian native who has held more than $200 million in logistical services contracts with the Navy
since 2011—classified information about ship deployments in exchange for luxury items, prostitutes,
and expensive trips. With the insider knowledge in hand, Francis would allegedly pressure Navy commanders
to steer their ships to his ports, where he would not only elaborately wine and dine the top officers
but also overcharge the Navy outrageously to service the ships, otherwise known as “husbanding.”
... ... ...
If the standing army so despised by our American Founding Father ancestors really were the
supreme force for good in society that we degraded scions now believe it to be, then it would
follow that the military dictatorship would be the most perfected, moral way of governing human
So it does seem our current solons agree, given their penchant for overthrowing pesky foreign
democracies and supporting military coups and juntas, from Pinochet to Egypt, now without even
communist opponents as handy fig leaves.
Now that there is an overarching fourth branch of secret unaccountable government, unconstrained
by law, overruling the other branches, treating the entire domestic population as adversaries
to be spied upon, all ruled over by military generals and military-industrial lackeys, we have
our own emergent home-grown turnkey totalitarian state infrastructure.
Our biggest businessmen prefer dealing with foreign dictatorships that supply them lackey
labor at huge profit, while despising democratic accountability at home, preferring to subvert
the republic through donorism, buying their legislation from politicians who were supposed to
have been elected to serve the American people instead.
An institution that serves at best only a necessary evil, preparation for mass killing as
defense against invasion, and at worst an unnecessary unmitigated evil, waging preemptive wars
of imperial conquest and occupation on behalf of financial elites, could hardly be the highest
expression of a moral people’s national aspirations. That it is seen as so, is symptomatic of
the same decline into degraded self-indulgence that permeates our wider brutalized society.
The collapsed military morale simply reflects the low estate of us all.
It’s tempting for many to think of the military as being somehow different from any other
political organization because of the uniform, the oath of office, etc., but it really isn’t.
If you’re at the bottom and have no resources, you can expect to have the book thrown at you
for your offenses because the military likes to preach accountability to the rank and file.
If you’re in the middle, it comes down to whether you have friends above you and whether
they are disposed to help under the circumstances. If you’re at the top, you will get every
courtesy from your peers as they try to figure out how to exonerate you and thus protect the
perceived infallibility of command.
I was a junior officer for five years in one branch of service, and I spent most of it stationed
in Japan. During my time there, one of my enlisted personnel got caught up in a base-wide DUI
dragnet; he elected non-judicial punishment, losing rank and pay. This is the kind of result
the military touts when it comes to its judicial process, because it’s what you would expect
from a civilian judiciary with no reason to care about the rank of the accused.
By contrast, one of my squadron’s officers, who had recently promoted to lieutenant colonel,
was found guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer while on exercise; I’ll never know all of
it, but it involved significant performance failures during the exercise and prostitutes on
the government dime. That colonel lost his opportunity to command, but he kept rank and pay
as he accepted another job in the transition to military retirement (in his early forties, naturally).
My base commander, a brigadier general, had interceded with the military police to keep his
wife from receiving a DUI, and – rumor has it – got a favored aide a prestigious job after she
became pregnant out of wedlock with his child. Naturally, nothing ever came of these “investigations”
and I believe he retired at the next rank years later.
As long as you have a rank-based hierarchy with very few limits on what subordinates may
be commanded to do, things like this will happen.
It’s more endemic than you know, especially out of the Academies:
“Also published in April 2003 was my series of articles entitled ‘Obedience to Orders,’ which
produced the biggest firestorm of controversy in FFF’s history. The article made the simple
point that officers who graduated from Virginia Military Institute were generally of higher
caliber than officers who graduated from the professional military academies. (In the interests
of full disclosure, I am a 1972 VMI graduate.) The reason? The graduates of the academies (generally,
and obviously with exceptions) are taught to maintain an unswerving obedience to orders, and
they know that their rise through the ranks of the military depends on such a mindset. VMI officers,
on the other hand, being trained as ‘citizen-soldiers,’ develop a sense of conscience and independent
thinking that (again generally, and with exceptions) trumps blind obedience to orders.”
Today’s academies, he added, tend to force cadets to compete ruthlessly with one another,
while setting up an “all or nothing” system that shuns creativity and honesty in favor of “winning”
and moving up the ranks.
My time in the naval academy (granted that it was in USSR early 1980s) was spent under the
rule of the semi-joke, semi-truth–”the fewer chevrons are on the cadet’s epaulets, the cleaner
is the consciousness”.
The talk, of course, was about cadet ranks which were awarded during the study. Everyone
knew, including the guys (class and company mates) who were in the cadet command positions (squad,
platoon and company leaders) that the only thing which mattered first of all was academics.
Leadership and command qualities were acquired through number of the activities and courses.
And fleet practices and cruises, of course. Obviously, upon graduation and acquiring an officer
rank things changed.
Nothing like living in an echo chamber. According to http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp
there are 1,433,000 active duty personnel.
This article highlights less than 1% of them involved in some manner of scandal. Far less
than 1%. While I do think that 800 involved in a single investigation is a matter of some concern.
less than one percent of the overall manpower hardly reflects some manner of moral crisis.
While I have a much lengthier response overall. I think the numbers indicate that most men and
women in our Armed Services are not scandal prone or involved in scandal.
Because of the nature of their mission any scandal should be addressed, but I am not sure
these media stories demonstrate a trend. And certainly the above examples are part of some aspects
of military culture, but hardly any more selective than what occurs in civilian communities.
Joe the Plutocrat
is it me, or am I the only one who understood Ike when he warned of the perils of “misplaced
power” inherent to the military industrial complex? more accurately, accepting the “military”
is half of the (potential) problem.
just as with the “careerism” of America’s political class, the military has developed it’s
own class of smarmy, self-serving “professionals” who view public service as a vehicle for personal
enrichment. there are many professional, dedicated officers who serve(d) honorably, but as with
Capitol Hill, there remains a disturbingly high number of pimps and influence peddlers who present
themselves as public servants.
For the next 20 years I would go on from war zone to war zone as a foreign correspondent immersed
in military culture. Repetitive rote learning and an insistence on blind obedience—similar to the
approach used to train a dog—work on the battlefield. The military exerts nearly total control over
the lives of its members. Its long-established hierarchy ensures that those who embrace the approved
modes of behavior rise and those who do not are belittled, insulted and hazed. Many of the marks
of civilian life are stripped away. Personal modes of dress, hairstyle, speech and behavior are
heavily regulated. Individuality is physically and then psychologically crushed. Aggressiveness
is rewarded. Compassion is demeaned. Violence is the favorite form of communication. These qualities
are an asset in war; they are a disaster in civil society.
Homer in “The Iliad” showed his understanding of war. His heroes are not pleasant men. They are
vain, imperial, filled with rage and violent. And Homer’s central character in “The Odyssey,” Odysseus,
in his journey home from war must learn to shed his “hero’s heart,” to strip from himself the military
attributes that served him in war but threaten to doom him off the battlefield. The qualities that
serve us in war defeat us in peace.
Most institutions have a propensity to promote mediocrities, those whose primary strengths
are knowing where power lies, being subservient and obsequious to the centers of power and never
letting morality get in the way of one’s career. The military is the worst in this respect.
In the military, whether at the Paris Island boot camp or West Point, you are trained not to
think but to obey. What amazes me about the military is how stupid and bovine its senior officers
are. Those with brains and the willingness to use them seem to be pushed out long before they can
rise to the senior-officer ranks.
The many Army generals I met over the years not only lacked the most rudimentary creativity and
independence of thought but nearly always saw the press, as well as an informed public, as impinging
on their love of order, regimentation, unwavering obedience to authority and single-minded use of
force to solve complex problems.
... ... ...
...Peace is for the weak. War is for the strong. Hypermasculinity has triumphed over empathy.
We Americans speak to the world exclusively in the language of force. And those who oversee our
massive security and surveillance state seek to speak to us in the same demented language. All other
viewpoints are to be shut out.
“In the absence of contrasting views, the very highest form of propaganda warfare can be
fought: the propaganda for a definition of reality within which only certain limited viewpoints
C. Wright Mills wrote. “What is being promulgated and reinforced is the military metaphysics—the
cast of mind that defines international reality as basically military.”
"Many of the defenders of increased war spending are opponents of welfare, but they are willing
to set aside their opposition to increased welfare spending in order to increase warfare spending."
... "While many neocons give lip service to limiting domestic spending, their main priority remains
protecting high levels of military spending to maintain an interventionist foreign policy"
Ever since “sequestration” went into effect at the beginning of last year, the military-industrial
complex’s congressional cheering session has complained that sequestration imposed “draconian cuts”
on the Pentagon that will “decimate” our military — even though most of the “cuts” were actually
reductions in the “projected rate of growth.” In fact, under sequestration, defense spending was
to increase by 18 percent over ten years, as opposed to growing by 20 percent without sequestration.
Many of the defenders of increased war spending are opponents of welfare, but they are willing
to set aside their opposition to increased welfare spending in order to increase warfare spending.
They are supported in this position by the lobbyists for the military-industrial complex and the
neoconservatives, whose continued influence on foreign policy is mystifying. After all, the neocons
were the major promoters of the disastrous military intervention in Iraq.
While many neocons give lip service to limiting domestic spending, their main priority remains
protecting high levels of military spending to maintain an interventionist foreign policy.
The influence of the neocons provides intellectual justification for politicians to vote for ever-larger
military budgets — and break the campaign promises to vote against increases in spending and debt.
Fortunately, in recent years more Americans have recognized that a constant defense of liberty
requires opposing both war and welfare. Many of these Americans, especially the younger ones, have
joined the intellectual and political movement in favor of limiting government in all areas. This
movement presents the most serious challenge the bipartisan welfare-warfare consensus has faced
in generations. Hopefully, the influence of this movement will lead to bipartisan deals cutting
both welfare and warfare spending.
The question facing Americans is not whether Congress will ever cut spending. The question is
will the spending be reduced in an orderly manner that avoids inflecting massive harm on those depending
on government programs, or will spending be slashed in response to an economic crisis caused by
ever-increasing levels of deficit spending. Because politicians are followers rather than leaders,
it is ultimately up to the people what course we will take. This is why it is vital that those of
us who understand the dangerous path we are currently on do all we can to expand the movement for
liberty, peace, and prosperity.
Three letter agencies are an important part of military industrial complex. May be the most influential
taking into account that they control the coverage of foreign events in MSM media. Quote: "The NSA
in its present state represents a marriage of military might and technological elitism. It is, in other
words, exactly what Eisenhower warned us about 53 years ago, and the threat is poses to our democracy
is grave indeed."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell speech, given 53 years ago this day, shook a nation
still struggling to move past the horrors we witnessed in World War II. He warned of a new power
that had risen up in the wake of that war -- the power of America’s military industrial complex
-- telling us in no uncertain terms that it holds the potential to destroy our democracy.
“We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become
the captive of a scientific, technological elite,” Eisenhower said. “It is the task of statesmanship
to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles
of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”
It would seem that his speech is more prescient now than ever before. Please, take a few minutes
to watch it in full:
President Barack Obama picked today to announce
a series of patheticly meager reforms to the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s embattled
electronic spying apparatus that has seemingly permeated every layer of our technologically driven
society. The White House told reporters that the date was not selected as a nod to Eisenhower. Coincidence,
however, is a funny thing.
The NSA in its present state represents a marriage of military might and technological elitism.
It is, in other words, exactly what Eisenhower warned us about 53 years ago, and the threat
is poses to our democracy is grave indeed.
"The NSA is collecting enormous amounts of information," Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said
in a prepared statement this week. "They know about the phone calls made by every person in this
country, where they're calling, who they're calling and how long they're on the phone. Let us not
forget that a mere 40 years ago we had a president of the United States who completely disregarded
the law in an effort to destroy his political opponents. In my view, the information collected
by the NSA has the potential to give an unscrupulous administration enormous power over elected
Sanders has been a leading voice for NSA reform in the halls of Congress, and recently demanded
if the agency was spying on elected officials. In a letter, NSA Director Keith Alexander denied
that the agency is spying on Congress, but he added that communications data generated by our elected
likely does get swept up by their massive phone and Internet dragnet.
The NSA insists that their dragnet is only intended to be used for fighting terrorism, and does
not identify specific communications or even the identity of those who are swept up in it. This
claim has been shown to be false. As national security reporter Marcy Wheeler recently pointed out
in a piece published by The Progressive, the NSA itself
published a training manual
which tells its analysts that merely looking at the so-called “metadata” the agency collects
can reveal the identity of their targets.
As such, not only can the NSA spy on elected officials, it can also create incredibly detailed
dossiers on every single citizen of every modern country in the world. Its massive server farms
vacuum up nearly everything on the Internet. Its sensors can peer within computers that are not
even connected to the Internet. For a recent spy satellite launch that deployed tech which the NSA
will most certainly make use of, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence selected as
its mission logo an octopus with tentacles wrapping around the globe. “Nothing is beyond our reach,”
Knowing all of this, listening to Eisenhower’s speech in our modern age is like hearing the words
of a prophet. Here is the President whose Federal investments gave us highways and satellites, telling
us that one day our military and technological elite will come to own our elected officials and
eventually dominate us all.
“Down the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours,
ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead,
a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect,” he said. “Such a confederation must be one
of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we,
protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength.”
What he described is nothing short of a road map to a more harmonious world, but that path is
blocked, completely and irreversibly, by the very existence of the NSA. This agency, which overlooks
the globe and peers across the horizon of human thought in search of national security threats,
is now among the greatest threat to world peace.
Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts says, “The country is not being run by
the President. It is being run by spy agencies and private interest groups,Wall Street
and military security complex . . .
They run the country. The President is a puppet, a figurehead.” Dr. Roberts contends, “If you
are a lawless state, which the United States is, it obeys no international law. It does not obey
the Geneva Convention . . . It tortures people. It doesn’t obey the Constitution. It doesn’t obey
anything. It does what it wants. . . . If you are a lawless state, you disguise yourself as a democracy.”
Former President Jimmy Carter agrees. Just last week, Carter said, “The U.S. has no functioning
democracy at this moment.”
Why hasn’t the mainstream media picked up this astounding comment from a former Democratic President?
Dr. Roberts says, “Five firms now own what used to be a large dispersed independent media. Nobody
can open their mouth, they’d get fired. They have become a propaganda ministry for government and
In late September 2001, less than 10 days after the 9/11 attacks, the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)—a group of prominent neoconservatives, liberal interventionists,
and members of the religious right who advocated a host of U.S.-led regime changes in the Middle
East—drafted a letter to President George W. Bush, commending his promise to “go after terrorism
wherever we find it in the world” and offering a number of recommendations for the remainder of
the president’s term.
The steps outlined in the letter were prescient in predicting Bush’s foreign policy priorities (and
to a lesser extent, the priorities of his successor, Barack Obama).
In addition to their advocacy positions on Iraq (invade immediately), Israel (support unconditionally),
and military spending (abide “no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed”),
the signatories urged a tougher stance on Hezbollah, as well as its state sponsors in Damascus and
In the letter, they argued that “any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah,” and urged
the administration to “demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and
political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the
administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors
Today, as Syria remains mired in a seemingly limitless spiral of violence, the question arises—what
has become of this attack-Syria coalition and what, if anything, has changed in its view of U.S.
Since World War II, the United States hasn't let a day go by without a mortal enemy.
In a 1985 article in Political Psychology, which I recently found while browsing JSTOR,
John Kennan was quoted by author John E. Mack.* Kennan, the political scientist and diplomat whose
ideas informed the U.S. policy of “containing” the Soviet Union wrote (in “Letter to an American,”
the New Yorker, September 24, 1984):
The habit of spending from two to three hundred billions of dollars annually on preparations
for an imagined war with Russia ― a habit reaching deeply into the lives and interests of millions
of our citizens both in and out of the armed services, including industrial workers, labor-union
officials, politicians, legislators, and middlemen: This habit has risen to the status of a
vast addiction of American society, an addiction whose overcoming would encounter the most intense
resistance and take years to accomplish even if the Soviet Union had in the meantime miraculously
disappeared from the earth.
In other words, he foresaw how unlikely it was that the United States, however flush with victory
over the Soviet Union (or more accurately, it didn’t col) would issue itself a “peace dividend,”
improving the economy by spending less on defense. While U.S. military spending would decrease during
the decline of the Soviet Union, as we all know it went through the roof after 9/11. As with the
Soviet Union after World War, the rise of Islamic terrorism arrived just in time to infuse the military-industrial
complex ― not to mention the American psyche ― with the adrenaline boost in fear they both thrive
Beginning his working life in the aviation industry and trained by the BBC, Tony Gosling is a British
land rights activist, historian & investigative radio journalist.
November 18, 2013 | RT Op-Edge
Make no mistake: the 'American Dream' was mortally wounded alongside John F. Kennedy in Dealey
Plaza on November 22, 1963.
The President's unpunished murder was an 'open season' declaration on the elected leadership
in the West. 'Robbed' of their 1962 Cuban nuclear war, the assassins were letting the whole world
know who was 'The Daddy'.
Fifty years on we seem to be losing the same war for democratic control of our governments. Bankster
robber barons and their Military Industrial Complex sidekicks are crawling all over the British
cabinet. US Secretary of State John Kerry is still at it too. Despite being nominally a Democrat
like JFK, he spends every waking hour in search of enemies, trying, by fair means and foul, to provoke
war with Lebanon, Syria and Iran.
Perhaps he has a death wish? Perhaps it is Kerry's lying-in-a-coffin initiation into Yale University's
Brotherhood of Death, the Skull and Bones Society, that blinds him to the likelihood his avarice
will spark a global nuclear exchange with Russia? Just like the 1962 provocateurs, cut from the
same cloth he doesn't give a damn.
US justice gets its boots on
The man who did the forensics and discovered most of the buried bodies in a trial that came within
a whisker of nailing the JFK conspirators was former US Army officer and New Orleans District Attorney
Jim Garrison. His investigation and 1988 book 'On the Trail of the Assassins' formed the rough draft
for Oliver Stone's 1991 definitive
Any treacherous TV station not showing JFK on the 50th anniversary should, I advise, be forever
deleted from your channel list. It's unlikely any of the NATO zone TV documentaries rolling out
over the 50th anniversary will come half as close to telling you what really happened as the Stone
Instead we're being fed a propaganda diet of rancid red herrings, laced with insulting false
trails while the graphic Zapruder film and a distraught Jackie Kennedy, as well as Jack Ruby shooting
patsy-suspect Lee Harvey-Oswald in the stomach, sow the seeds of fear where they hurt.
Just as with more recent unexplained deaths of UK Secret Service men David Kelly in 2003 and
Gareth Williams in 2010 the message of JFK's gruesome assassination is designed to fundamentally
undermine the social fabric. The horror slips under the radar of consciousness to stamp into millions
of psyches what, with impunity, the secret government can do.
For a refreshing taste of 'Garrison in the raw', listener-supported Oakland, California, radio
outfit Guns and Butter's two-hour 1988 show 'The Assassination of JFK: The Garrison Interview' gets
to the heart of the story. We hear, in Bonnie Faulkner’s and Andrew Phillips's
production, the voice of history's
unfortunate self-confessed patsy Lee Harvey Oswald as well as Oliver Stone.
Radio Station KPFA co-producer David Mendelsohn interviews Garrison nearly 20 years after the
trial of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw, by which time further witnesses had crawled out of the
woodwork, bringing with them further pieces of the jigsaw.
Garrison's disarming frankness and black humor make Guns and Butter's 25th anniversary production
the benchmark documentary against which the entire 50th anniversary clutch can be judged. Evidence
of the mainstream media's crippling influence that this classic documentary has still never been
broadcast on national radio in the US or UK.
The 'we’ll-never-know' brigade
Mainstream media flunkies are paid well to tell us that because Oswald was shot we will never
know what organization or individuals were behind Kennedy's assassination. I beg to differ. The
CIA - set up by Allen Dulles, who did the dirty 1945 deals with the Nazis, and who JFK fired - killed
Specifically-named individuals winkled out by Garrison are Cuban and New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos
Marcello and two more with far right CIA links: Civil Air Patrol pilot David Ferrie and private
investigator Guy Banister.
The CIA plot to upend US democracy couldn't have worked though without the support of the man
who would replace Kennedy. After his inauguration, new President Lyndon B. Johnson immediately re-fired
up the Vietnam & Cold War policies JFK had cooled.
Johnson gained financially too through his 'Suite 8F Group'. This has today grown to become the
Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) Inc., one of the largest military contractors on the planet with $8 billion
The CIA's three central motives are pretty clear: Kennedy successfully stopped a nuclear war
with the Soviet Union in 1962 that Strategic Air Command's General Curtis LeMay intended to win
"...at any point the Soviet Union could have been obliterated without more than expectable losses
on our side."
Kennedy blocked air support and other US military aid for the 1961 Bay of Pigs Cuban invasion
attempt, leaving the hawks with egg on their faces. He was closing down one of the CIA's biggest
slush fund operations, the Vietnam War. Cash was coming in aplenty from heroin trafficking in the
Echoes from the dawn of time?
Perhaps there was something archetypal and timeless about Kennedy's death. Former US Naval officer-turned-radio
host William Cooper put it like this in 1996: "There was even a time in history when the king was
a sacrificial king. Just like John F. Kennedy was in the Temple of the Sun known as Dealey Plaza."
Though this sounds far-fetched, Cooper is one of the few individuals who, on his 'Hour of the
Time' short wave radio show in June 2001, publicly predicted a spectacular attack on America to
be blamed on Osama Bin Laden. Five months later, after 9/11, Cooper was shot dead by the FBI, who
had been trying to entrap him by posing as hoodlums outside his Arizona home.
The secret government
So who are this secret government that uses blackmail, character assassination and murder to
shoot the messengers and direct those we elect to high office? They are the kind of furious cash
unlimited networkers of the Council on Foreign Relations, Sun Valley, Davos, Trilateral Commission
and Bilderberg groups.
Welded into the Military Industrial Complex these lobbyists laugh in the face of cash-starved
politicians as they play the power game of nations. They extend territory abroad while their political
gofers roll out a domestic police state at home. Bankrolling them are the dynasties of the Rockefellers
in the US and the Rothschilds across Europe.
What was US colonial independence really all about? Yes, money. The settlers quite rightly wanted
to print their own in 1775 and England wasn't having it. As the documentary 'The Secret of Oz' explains,
private US bankers went on to take that power off the American people in the Federal Reserve Act
of 1913 The United States is suffering under the exact same power now that they fought Britain to
be free of.
William Cooper also said "Any general that ventures upon a battlefield without understanding
the enemy is doomed to defeat." The Western political establishment needs a crash course right now
in locking up banking fraudsters and how the state Treasury can take back control of money.
What would those who fought and died on the Allied side in World War II say if they could see
how we and our leaders are letting Europe and America slip into the hands of the banksters?
Despite all the JFK TV propaganda though it is the Jim Garrisons, Bonnie Faulkners, David Mendelsohn's
and Oliver Stones that will carry the day. Trust is waning in the West's mainstream media, particularly
amongst the youngsters, and those old JFK lies are well past their sell by date.
On occasion of the publication of his latest book, “JFK: Staatsstreich in Amerika” (“JFK: Coup
d’état in America“), German author Mathias Broeckers has talked to The Global Research elaborating
on his research into the crime.
“JFK had made definitive steps to end the Cold War. He had denied the involvement of the army
in the Bay of Pigs invasion, which he had inherited from his predecessor, he had solved the missile
crisis in Cuba through direct and secret contact with the Soviet-leader Khrushchev, he had ensured
a nuclear test-stop with the Soviets, and he had ordered the withdrawal from Vietnam. All this against
the will of the military, the CIA, and even against many members of his own administration,” Broeckers
Broeckers pointed out that many groups including the communists in Russia, China, Cuba, the Israelis
because of “JFK’s dismissal of nukes in Israel,” and the Federal Reserve because of his idea for
a new US dollar backed by silver, had motives to kill the president but “only the CIA and the military
- and the FBI and the Johnson administration for the cover-up” had the means to carry out such an
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, several people who were stopped by the police showed
“genuine looking Secret Service IDs,” but there were no real Secret Service men placed on the “grassy
knoll” and the Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas where Kennedy was assassinated, the German
“These IDs were fakes but the FBI and the Warren Commission didn’t investigate this at all. Only
in the 80s it came out who was responsible for the printing of Secret Service IDs and passes at
that time: it was the CIAs Technical Division, headed by Sydney Gottlieb of 'MK Ultra' fame.”
The fact that this “deception” was not investigated for so many years, immediately brings the
FBI into a “top-position of suspects”, Broeckers noted.
The German author further said that a crucial point regarding the cover-up of the assassination
is the false autopsy report. “The ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board) established beyond any
doubt that the autopsy and X-rays, which are in the National Archives, were doctored.”
The fake autopsy and X-rays were conducted at the Bethseda military hospital and under the supervision
of Curtis LeMay, the Joint Air Force chief and one of Kennedy’s “keenest enemies,” Broeckers added.
The faked documents “which were presented to every investigator since then, are a main reason
why the crazy magic bullet theory could hold for so long. Only the military, where these pics and
X-rays were taken, was able to arrange these fakes and place them in the archives.”
A strong motive for the CIA to want Kennedy out of the way, according to Broeckers, was that
the former president sought to reform the spy agency.
“Since the CIA’s ‘father’ Allen Dulles was a Wall Street lawyer and his brother John Foster ran
the foreign policy, covert operations were a family business done by the Dulles Brothers and their
clients on Wall Street. This is what JFK tried to finish and what marked him to death.”
The Associated Press reports that researchers are demanding the CIA to declassify documents detailing
what the government knew about Kennedy’s accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, before the assassination.
Several hundred of the still-classified pages, according to AP, concern CIA operative “George
Joannides, whose activities just before the assassination and, fascinatingly, during a government
investigation years later, have tantalized researchers for years.”
Joannides left the CIA in 1979 and died in March 1990.
On occasion of the publication of his latest book, German author Mathias Broeckers talks about
the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, which he sees as a coup
d’etat that was never rolled back.
Mathias Broeckers, born 1954, is a German investigative journalist and the author of more than
ten books, most of them related to the topics of drugs, terrorism and deep politics. He works for
the daily German newspaper TAZ and the webzine Telepolis. His latest book, “JFK: Staatsstreich in
Amerika” (“JFK: Coup d’Etat in America“), was published this August at Westend Verlag in Frankfurt,
Lars Schall: Mr. Broeckers, a writer who authors a book about the assassination of John F. Kennedy
that does not follow the verdict of official history faces the problem of being condemned on an
instant basis as a “conspiracy theorist” who engages in “conspiracy theories.” May I ask you at
the beginning of this interview to explain to our readers that those critics – consciously or unconsciously
– are acting exactly according to the “playbook” of the CIA?
Mathias Broeckers: In January 1967, shortly after Jim Garrison in New Orleans had started his
prosecution of the CIA backgrounds of the murder, the CIA published a memo to all its stations,
suggesting the use of the term “conspiracy theorists” for everyone criticizing the Warren Report
findings. Until then the press and the public mostly used the term “assassination theories” when
it came to alternative views of the “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald. But with this memo this changed
and very soon “conspiracy theories” became what it is until today: a term to smear, denounce and
defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence
services. Before Edward Snowden anyone claiming a kind of total surveillance of internet and phone
traffic would have been named a conspiracy nut; today everyone knows better.
LS: What do you see as the prime motive(s) to get Kennedy killed?
MB: To make a long story, which I elaborate in the book, short: JFK had made definitive steps
to end the cold war. He had denied the involvement of the army in the Bay of Pigs invasion, which
he had inherited from his predecessor, he had solved the missile crisis in Cuba through direct and
secret contact with the Soviet-leader Khrushchev, he had ensured a nuclear test-stop with the Soviets,
and he had ordered the withdrawal from Vietnam. All this against the will of the military, the CIA,
and even against many members of his own administration.
LS: If one looks at the crime from the perspective of “motive, means, opportunity,” which groups
are the most likely culprits? Some of the usual suspects may have had a motive, but neither the
means nor the opportunity, right?
MB: Yes. This is a crucial point with many JFK theories. A lot of people had motives, be it the
hardcore commies in Russia, China, Cuba, be it the Israelis because of JFKs dismissal of nukes in
Israel, be it the Federal Reserve because of his idea for a new US dollar backed by silver, the
mob because of his dismissal to invade Cuba to get their casinos and brothels back, the racist Southerners
because of his engagement for civil rights… but no one of them had the means and opportunity for
the murder and above all the means to cover it up over the years.
LS: Which party had the necessary components of “means and opportunity” available?
MB: Only the CIA and the military – and the FBI and the Johnson administration for the cover-up.
A moment after the shootings, a policeman ran up to the grassy knoll, his gun pulled out, and stopped
a man there, asking for his ID. The man showed a Secret Service card and the cop let him go. Several
other men on Dealey Plaza also showed genuine looking Secret Service IDs when asked by cops – but
there were no real Secret Service men placed on the knoll and the plaza this day.
These IDs were fakes but the FBI and the Warren Commission didn’t investigate this at all. Only
in the 80s it came out who was responsible for the printing of Secret Service IDs and passes at
that time: it was the CIAs Technical Division, headed by Sydney Gottlieb of “MK Ultra” fame. This
fact alone rules out that the mob or the Russians, Cubans, Chinese or some other autonomous killers
did this on their own bill. And even if these groups would have been able to fake genuine looking
Secret Service IDs – the fact that this deception was not investigated, immediately brings Hoover’s
FBI into a top-position of suspects.
LS: One crucial point regarding the cover up of the crime is the false autopsy report – also
in connection to “means and opportunity”. Please elaborate.
MB: The ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board) established beyond any doubt that the autopsy
and x-rays, which are in the National Archives, were doctored. No mobster, bankster or Cuban would
have been able to do this. These fakes were done at the Bethseda military hospital, where JFKs autopsy
was supervised by Curtis LeMay, the Joint Air Force Chíef and one of JFKs keenest enemies. He was
at a fishing vacation when the Dallas shooting happened and flew to Washington immediately – not
for any military emergency but to sit in the autopsy room – and smoking a cigar! The faked pictures
and x-rays, which were presented to every investigator since then, are a main reason why the crazy
magic bullet theory could hold for so long. Only the military, where these pics and x-rays were
taken, was able to arrange these fakes and place them in the archives.
LS: Another important point is the tampering with the so called “Zapruder film”. Why so?
MB: Also thanks to the ARRB there is a lot of evidence that the film was tampered with on the
day after the assassination. However, even the existing “original” seems to show clearly a shot
from the front, the grassy knoll – so the fake wasn’t perfect. That the Warren Commission was shown
only a bad black/white copy indicates that the perpetrators were aware of that. That the Zapruder
film was bought by the Time/Life publishers – and kept secret to the public for years; as the Nix-film
bought by UPI and disappeared – indicates the guiltiness of the media in the cover-up.
LS: Coming back to the CIA, do you think that the CIA had separated itself from governmental
oversight during the 1950s and 1960s, or would it be more correct to suggest that the Agency actually
was a ploy of financial interests from the outset? Or more bluntly spoken: was democratic oversight
MB: In general, democracy and intelligence services are antagonists; democracy depends on transparency
and intelligence services on the opposite. So the democratic / congressional / governmental oversight
is always a quite rotten compromise. The CIA’s camouflage from the beginning was that it is a service
to gather intelligence – and centralize the intelligence gathering of the different other services
– to keep the president informed. The main job of the CIA were and are covert operations, and because
such operations depend on “plausible deniability,” it was usual from the beginning to inform the
president – if at all – only minimally. Since the CIA’s “father” Allen Dulles was a Wall Street
lawyer and his brother John Foster ran the foreign policy, covert operations were a family business
done by the Dulles-Brothers and their clients on Wall Street. This is what JFK tried to finish and
what marked him to death.
LS: You´re citing investigative journalist Joseph Trento, saying about former CIA director Allen
Dulles: “Dulles had decided not to leave the future of the Agency to Congress or the President.”
What made Dulles powerful enough to risk such a decision?
MB: Dulles’ clients were bankers and big corporations, who were in big business with Nazi-Germany
in the 30s and even during the war. Some of them, like Prescott Bush – George W.’s grandfather –
were indicted for “dealing with the enemy”, and Allen Dulles, head of the OSS in Switzerland during
the war, arranged a lot of these dealings. He arranged the secret integration of Nazi spy chief
Reinhard Gehlen and some hundreds of his SS officers into the US army and the building-up of the
CIA apparatus. Between 1945 when the OSS was dismantled and 1947 when the CIA was founded he did
this privately – without any official position – from his office at the “Council on Foreign Relations.”
LS: Would it have been more appropriate if Dulles would have been interrogated with regard to
Kennedy’s death, instead of having been the mastermind behind the Warren Commission?
MB: It’s a perfect irony, or better: huge cynism, by the puppet of Texas-oilmen, Lyndon B. Johnson,
to have Dulles masterminding the Commission. But since it worked out so well they tried it again,
this time unsuccessful, to have “Bloody Henry” Kissinger masterminding the 9/11 Commission. In my
opinion Dulles is one of the main suspects in the Kennedy murder and should have been prosecuted
LS: How did both the CIA and the FBI mislead the Warren Commission in various ways?
MB: The result of the Commission was clear from the beginning, the Commission didn’t do any investigations
at all, and it depended on the data given by the FBI. Hoover knew about the many fingerprints of
the CIA in the case, he knew that they had brought up fake evidence of Oswald’s visits in Mexico
to blame him as a communist – and concluded only two days after the shooting that there was only
the lone shooter LHO.
Hoover hated the Kennedys, especially his boss Robert F Kennedy, and was the main evildoer in
the framing of Oswald and the cover-up of the case. The CIA arranged the false evidence for what
Peter Dale Scott (“Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”) called Phase 1 of the cover-up – the “communist”-connection,
which enabled Johnson – screaming of the dangers of a nuclear war – to press the commission members
to take part, and to make sure Phase 2 of the cover-up and the result of their pseudo-investigation:
the deranged lone nut Oswald.
LS: One usual suspect in the “JFK conspiracy literature” is the mob. In your book you’re writing
that it doesn’t always make sense to distinguish between organized crime and the CIA. How did you
come to this conclusion?
MB: From the “Luciano Project” in 1943 – the help of the imprisoned mob-boss Lucky Luciano with
the invasion of Sicily – the mob became the tool of choice for covert CIA-operations and generating
black money from the drug business. Where ever the US-military set their boots in or the CIA is
doing “regime changes,” drug money is essential for financing these operations, from South East
Asia in the 60s till today in Afghanistan. And since Langley can’t sell the stuff directly over
their counter, they need the mobsters to do this – and get its share to finance warlords / freedom
fighters / terrorists…
LS: May I ask you to talk a bit in that regard about Permindex (Permanent Industrial Exposition),
MB: Permindex was a front-company for CIA, MI-6 and Mossad and a straw for their money-laundering
and weapons-business. They worked together with Meyer Lansky’s bank in Switzerland, which was run
by Tibor Rosenbaum, who did most of the weapons-business of the Mossad.
LS: Was Jim Garrison in general heading into the right direction?
MB: He was, because Clay Shaw, the owner of the New Orleans International Trade Mart and one
of the directors of Permindex, was clearly working with the CIA. That’s why Garrison’s case was
sabotaged by the Washington Establishment right from the beginning.
LS: Why is it remarkable that CIA had a 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald?
MB: John Newman (“Oswald and the CIA”) has done remarkable research on how the CIA manipulated
its files on Oswald and faked a 201 personal file to present it to the Warren Commission, showing
that they had virtually nothing on him before 1962. This is clearly impossible after Oswald’s defection
to the USSR in 1959. The most likely cause for this manipulation is that Oswald was part of the
false defector program headed by JJ Angelton, the counterintelligence chief.
LS: You are arguing if Lee Harvey Oswald would have been indeed solely responsible for Kennedy’s
death that the case would have been solved beyond a reasonable doubt. Why so?
MB: From all crimes, murder is the one with the most cases solved by courts. There would have
been no need for all the cover-ups since 50 years, if LHO indeed was a lone nut.
LS: Moreover, you’re arguing that Oswald would have been acquitted of the charge of having killed
Kennedy, if he would have survived. Why so?
MB: Even Gerald Posener, the author of “Case Closed” – the apology of the Warren Commission’s
findings -, meanwhile is saying that. There is no hard evidence that Oswald was on the 5th floor
when the shooting took place; there is no evidence that the “Mannlicher”-gun, that he had mail-ordered,
was fired that day; there is no hard evidence that he killed Officer Tippit, because witnesses saw
two men shooting at him… and so on. Oswald would have left the court room as a free man.
LS: Why was it necessary that Jack Ruby killed Oswald? And furthermore, did they know each other?
MB: They knew each other well, and since Oswald was an asset of FBI and CIA, he had to be silenced
before he could talk.
LS: There was not just one plot to kill Kennedy in Dallas, but there was at least one more planned
for a visit of Kennedy to Chicago, right?
MB: Yes, there was a plot planned in Chicago with clear parallels to what happened in Dallas
– with an ex-Marine as the prepared patsy, who got a job on a high rise building on the route that
the motorcade was planned to take some weeks before, and who had trained with exile-Cubans like
Oswald. By chance the sharp-shooters were detected by an hotelier and the Chicago visit was cancelled.
LS: Why did JFK die on November 22, 1963?
MB: JFK had made a radical change while president, from a classic cold warrior to a policy of
reconciliation and peace. He had made angry enemies in the military and the CIA and when he announced
to end the cold war in his speech on June 10th 1963 he finally was marked to death.
LS: Can you tell us something about the role of the Secret Service and the U.S. military in the
MB: The Secret Service men were mostly Southerners, who deeply dismissed JFKs civil rights politics.
They did a very lax security in Dallas and there is a probability that some of these men were sweetened
to do so. The memories of Abraham Bolden, the first Afro-American brought to the Secret Service
by JFK in 1961, tells that when he tried to contact the Warren Commission to talk about the supremacist,
racist attitude of his colleagues, he was indicted by corrupted false witnesses and brought to prison.
The military played a crucial role in the false autopsy & x-ray-pictures made at the Bethseda
hospital in Washington DC and the testimony of the doctors. General Curtis LeMay, Joint Chief of
the Air Force and one of the harshest opponents of JFKs peace politics, was present in the autopsy
room in Bethseda, smoking a cigar! I think his presence was not by chance.
The military intelligence also played a crucial role in Dallas – the first interviews of Marina
Oswald was not by Dallas Police but by officers of the military intelligence, which also arranged
a dubious translator for her testimonies, which helped to frame Oswald in the first place.
LS: Where did the funding for the coup come from?
MB: The Texas oilmen and billionaires H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison are the most probable financiers,
even if there is no hard evidence for it. They paid for the ad in the Dallas paper the day before
the visit, naming Kennedy a communist and a traitor. They hated JFK to the bones and they had LBJ
in their pocket, their insurance that everything would be covered up properly.
LS: How many people lost their lives over the years related to the Kennedy assassination?
MB: A well-researched new book by Richard Belzer (“Hit List”) lists 1.400 persons with a connection
to the murder and in the first three years after the assassination 33 of them came to death on unnatural
causes. The probability that this happened by chance is 1: 137 billion.
LS: Was it basically the right-wing / fascist and racist mindset in the U.S. that won the coup
d’etat on November 22, 1963?
MB: Yes. And in Dallas, Texas these right-wing fascists, who called themselves “patriots,” had
a home game.
LS: What would the history of the “Cold War” have been if the nuclear arms race had ended in
Kennedy’s second term? Would the Berlin Wall have come down sooner?
MB: After the nuclear test stop, JFK announced to his confidants that he would go to Moscow after
the re-election to negotiate a peace treaty. In public he had already announced to stop the arms
race in order to end the cold war. In a National Action Security Memorandum he had called for a
co-operation with the Russians in space. After the exchange of secret letters with Khrushchev, which
ended the missile crisis, he was on good terms with the Soviet leader, who in the Kremlin also had
called for disarmament. The death of JFK encouraged the Soviet hardliners to get rid of him. With
Kennedy alive, Khrushchev would have stood in power and the cold war could have been ended in the
LS: Why does the death of JFK still matter?
MB: It’s the most important crime in the second half of the 20th century, it is still unsolved
and it marked in a way the end of the American Republic. Since then the financial-military-industrial
complex rules and no president after JFK had the balls to challenge that. There is, in the words
of Gore Vidal, “a one-party-system with two right-wings”; there are corporate media brainwashing
the population 24/7 and propagating wars for global imperial dominance; there are covert operations
all over the world to ensure this dominance – and this will go on and on as long the truth about
the covert operation, the coup d’ état, against JFKs presidency is kept hidden.
LS: Thank you very much for taking your time, Mr. Broeckers!
These are major long term wars each lasting two to three times as long as World War II. Forbes
reports that one million US soldiers have been injured in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. RT
that the cost of keeping each US soldier in Afghanistan has risen from $1.3 million per soldier
to $2.1 million per soldier. Matthew J. Nasuti reports in the
Kabul Press that it
cost US taxpayers $50 million to kill one Taliban soldier. That means it cost $1 billion to kill
20 Taliban fighters. This is a war that can be won only at the cost of the total bankruptcy of the
Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes have estimated that the current out-of-pocket and already incurred
future costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars is at least $6 trillion.
Two United States admirals, including the Navy’s chief intelligence officer, were stripped of
their access to classified information on Friday after being implicated in a contracting scandal
that federal prosecutors are investigating in San Diego.
The accusations against the two officers — Vice Adm. Ted Branch, the director of naval intelligence,
and Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless, the director of intelligence operations — signal a significant escalation
in the investigation and show its widening impact on the Navy.
Admirals Branch and Loveless have been accused of “inappropriate conduct” in connection with
the scandal, Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Navy’s chief of information, said in a statement Friday
night. Investigators had so far named only midlevel Navy officers accused of accepting visits from
prostitutes and lavish trips — and in one instance $100,000 in cash — from Leonard Francis, a Malaysian
Navy officials said the allegations against Admirals Branch and Loveless involved personal misconduct
in accepting gifts or services from Mr. Francis, the nature of which could have exposed them to
blackmail. But, the officials said, there was no sign at this point that the admirals had done anything
for Mr. Francis that might lead to bribery charges against them.
Mr. Francis, chief executive of Glenn Defense Marine Asia, has been charged with bribing Navy
officials to shift port calls for warships to ports where he could charge exorbitant fees.
Neither Admiral Branch, whose appointment required Senate approval, nor Admiral Loveless has
been charged with a crime, and there is no indication that classified information was leaked, Admiral
Kirby said. Both men have been put on leave, he said, but will keep their security clearances.
The quest for world domination inevitably leads to transfer of power to military industrial complex
and conversion of state into national security state.
Jane on September 1, 2013
Swanson's overarching argument is that the war industry became established in WWII, and indelibly
entrenched in policy during the Cold War. Today, the military-industrial complex is the most
powerful special interest group, influencing foreign policy, the economy, and social issues.
It calls into question the constitutionality of current government .
Though he introduces the concept of the military-industrial complex in Chapter 1, Swanson
refers back to his definition many times throughout the book. This adds to the book's clarity
because there is an easy-to-follow theme throughout the book. Rarely do I feel, "okay... why
is all this in the book?" (which, to me, seems so common in long historical narratives)
Swanson makes the connection between war and "big government." I thought this was
one of the most fascinating political theories in the book. He ties together the economic, political,
and social implications of the militarization era. He highlights the CIA, the American government's
own "secret society," as well as criminal negligence and government self-regulation as problems
in government policy.
The second half of the book transitions to the rise of "national security" as a prop for
government action, and concludes with an investigation of Cold War repercussions that extend
into the 21st century. I feel that Swanson expertly highlights the similarities between the
Cold War period and modern Middle East conflicts. For example, the national security issue remains
relevant today, in context of September 11th and the Patriot Act. Swanson even extends his argument
to the constitution, illustrating how as national security's threat to personal liberty.
The conclusion also offers an intelligent summation of the author's arguments and analysis.
Swanson speaks to the insane fantasy land the federal government lives in as it attempts to
"control a dynamic and changing world." At the same time, the "big government" squeezes the
individual person, through ever increasing taxes, calling for personal sacrifice through our
always-mobilized army, and the pressure our country places on other independent nations to adopt
the same military-industrial complex.
This book was an enlightening and educational experience which positively influenced my political
opinion. I highly recommend it for those who are curious about post-war history.
Jacob G. Hornberger (Future of Freedom Foundation, Fairfax, VA USA) on September 6, 2013
An Awesome Book on the Warfare State,
Of all the books I've read on the national-security state and the warfare state, this book
ranks among the best. It provides an excellent introduction to the major problem that is facing
the American people: the warfare-state, national-security state apparatus that was grafted
onto our constitutional order after World War II. Swanson carefully explains how this fundamentally
changed our constitutional order and our way of life as Americans, for the worse.
Swanson shows how the national-security state has become a permanent bureaucratized part
of the U.S. government. He cites President Eisenhower's warning to the American people about
the dangers that the military-industrial complex pose to our democratic processes. And he details
the ever-growing tensions that existed between Eisenhower's successor, John Kennedy, and the
national-security state establishment. His perspectives on the Cold War and the Cuban Missile
Crisis are among the best I've read.
While the book covers the period 1945-1963, in the final chapter Swanson shows the relevance
of the war state to Americans today:
"Today the military-industrial complex is more powerful than ever and the war state has
become a bloated fiscal nightmare intent to engage in seemingly endless and unwinnable wars
until the end of time -- all on the basis of supposed threats that are even bigger exaggerations
than the Soviet threat was ever portrayed to be during the Cold War. The problem is that
if defense spending is not brought under control, eventually the size of the federal debt
and the budget deficit will grow so large that the value of the US dollar will decline.
It already has..."
"The promoters of the war state answer by claiming that it is all necessary for your
own safety. But is it? In my view, our choice today is not one of safety or defense, because
it really doesn't take much to defend the United States of America. Instead, our choice
is between reducing military spending and creating a rational foreign policy or going bankrupt
in order to maintain the power of the war state and its imperial policies that don't work
and harm the national economy."
Best of all, this book, this book is oriented toward the educated layman, not the academic.
As such, it is easily readable and easily understandable. It's about 400 pages long, and I read
it in about three consecutive evenings.
Michael Swanson gets it. He sees what the embrace of the national-security state has done
to our nation. Just like us here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, he's not willing to accept
the notion that the warfare-state apparatus is a necessary part of the U.S. government. He clearly
understands, in fact, that the freedom and future well-being of the American people lies in
Buy this book! It is a shining light in the dark times in which we live. Better yet, buy
multiple copies for your family and friends!
John Ellis (Gainesville, VA USA) on September 10, 2013
Clear Powerful Informative,
Hard to put down, Swanson's account, well referenced, of the enormous and persistent military
buildup since WW2 boggles the mind. It shows how we have simply swallowed the propaganda and
how even presidents have been forced to follow suit, given the enormous profits and far reaching
influence the armaments industry has had on Congress and on public opinion. Swanson first points
out Eisenhower's stark warnings and how despite them, the buildup never ceased. Fighters as
the F-22 Raptor with no clear combat mission costing over 120 million a copy are very hard to
explain on any other grounds than profits. Truly, if the US ran out of enemies, it would have
to invent them. ... ... ...
We are undergoing shocking threats to liberty we are already seeing by this militarization,
even of our police forces, that have resulted from a constant war footing, the establishment
and constant encroachment by Homeland Security and the paranoia that accompanies it.
... ... .... Local jurisdictions freely admit they are forced to using their police departments
as cash cows, ticketing passing motorists for the most inane of infractions, not for safety,
but for revenue, as Federal and local sources of money dry up. Swanson notes how the ability
to keep money seized in stops for drug trafficking has resulted in corruption, planted evidence
and phony arrests to justify the ends and how the ill fated drug war has created more self-serving
monstrous bureaucracies and private prison companies increasingly desperate to perpetuate their
own existence. I was an Air Force Flight surgeon on nuke-armed B-52's during the Cold War
and I saw much of coming this head on.
This huge nuclear fleet, continuously airborne, was to be a WW3 deterrent on the cheap, helping
to avoid having to maintain a huge standing army with its enormous costs, but the armaments
industry, as Swanson points out, could not tolerate such a state. Swanson's knowledge of history
and his gift of writing elevates him to the level of George Orwell (1984 and Animal Farm) and
Phillip Roth (Fahrenheit 451) in describing our devastating ruinous course, with a destiny of
joining the historical wrecks of past democracies similarly destroyed by dystopian forces. We
fail to read and heed this important, fully Pulitzer Prize quality work at our peril.
J. Quick (@ bookbitch.com) on September 2, 2013
A Must Read,
Don't let the title scare you away from this engaging narrative. (I have a very personal
interest in this as a cousin gave up his Air Force career as the result of the stress of the
Cuban Missile Crisis. He said he couldn't sleep thinking about all the people about to die.)
The author knows his material and manages to present it in a very entertaining manner. Swanson
makes a persuasive case that control of our country has effectively been ceded to a small power
elite of individuals in business and government who report to no one and who guide the nation
no matter which political party is in power. To support his argument Swanson uses previously
unavailable information about the Cold War from the perspective of the Soviets. Swanson's research
is detailed and authoritative. One particular interesting aspect is Swanson's tracing the connection
from the US initial efforts to install the Shah of Iran to our current problems in that region.
Whether or not you agree with Swanson's conclusions this should be a must-read for anyone interested
in post World War-II international affairs, which should be everyone since all our lives are
affected daily by the results of these actions.
Regarding the NSA scandal--what one might call the
surveillance conspiracy--Jimmy Carter recently said in Der Spiegel (July 17, 2013) that "America
has no functioning democracy at this moment." He has also praised Snowden's courage, hoping
it would give the United States a salutary shakeup. When did the tipping point occur? When did
democracy's downhill slide begin? According to Joseph McBride, playing journalistic and scholarly
tour guide as he takes us Into the Nightmare, it began with the successful killing of JFK--and
of Officer J.D. Tippit as well--on November 22, 1963, gaining momentum with a seemingly well-orchestrated
coverup in the wake. Luckily, Professor McBride accomplishes an astonishing feat in offering
his reinterpretation, one that profits from his three decades of diligent research on the topic
and his interdisciplinary and encyclopedic ability to remember and arrange.
If you think Professor McBride is one of those crazy conspiracy theorists, be sure to read
his chapter on the CIA's campaign, memos and all, to throw doubt on any who might come to question
the Oswald-only version of the assassination, who might instead argue that there were a number
of killers, e.g. Grassy Knoll marksmen as well. It is possible you will recognize, as you read
the CIA memo, tag lines that hang out in your own or a friend's mind, the prefab objections
to conspiracy theorists. On the other hand, Watergate, Iran/Contra, NSA may float to the surface
of your mind and you may have to admit that conspiracies do happen. If they can happen from
the governmental side, why not from the side of the assassins? Or were the two sides one and
Some players include the CIA, the anti-Castro Cubans, big oil and the mafia: LBJ and even
the elder Bush (Chapter 10) would have a fair amount to explain as well. The doubts regarding
such players are by no means wildly raised, but very carefully, very systematically. "Paranoid"
is one of the buzzwords the CIA had suggested for its campaign against conspiracy theorists:
It is right there in the memo that McBride documents. But the McBride book gives not only evidence
that confirms its theories but also that which disconfirms: good research.
I refer, in this case, to the evidence bearing on the Warren Commission report's "lone nut"
version of the killings, with Oswald having been responsible for not only Kennedy's death and
Governor Connally's injury--including using just one bullet that got them both, no less--but
also for Officer Tippit's death en route to Oswald's own attempted escape. This book is, henceforth,
a must-read for any with an ongoing interest in what remains an open case. That it does remain
an open case is proven by the simple fact that the Warren Commission report, with Oswald as
the "lone nut," has been later contradicted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations
report, which finally concedes that two shooters must have been active.
McBride himself points out unique contributions as he goes along, the biggest one being his
new and telling research on the J.D. Tippit death, research that begins to link Tippit with
Ruby and the mafia, big oil, and the extreme right wing. It must be remembered as well, which
McBride demonstrates, that, should LBJ have been involved in the JFK assassination, which is
not proven, although there is documentation of his involvement in the coverup, he profited enormously
from reversing JFK's intentions to gradually withdraw from Vietnam, since he owned substantial
stock in Kellogg, Brown & Root, which had been absorbed in 1962 into Halliburton, both of which
enjoyed a pile of non-competitive contracts for the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. With the death
of JFK, LBJ also ducked a scandal about his own finances which would have burst upon the scene
any minute. Oddly enough, then, solving the Tippit death accurately, rather than throwing that
one on Oswald as well--who cried out when being led off "I'm just a patsy!"--is crucial.
Finally, McBride fashions this book of non-fiction, this history, as a Bildungsroman. The
"Bildung" or education of an idealistic youth he tells in all its idiosyncracy: The author began
as an ardent believer in Catholicism, America, and its free media, with two journalists for
parents; he gradually lost that bloom of innocence, resisting along the way, and acquired the
wound of experience; he tells the story so vividly that it becomes the American journey itself.
Luckily, the wound does not prevent his own dogged progress, patriotic even or especially in
its deeply skeptical approach. Blood, however, stains the pages. Without not only McBride's
wakeup call but also the many other calls that are right now sounding, both about a political
shadow government and even (cf. Catherine Austin Fitts) a financial shadow system as well, and
without our actively heeding those calls, there will be, at home and abroad, more blood to come.
Hannah Arendt has said (University of Chicago, lecture series, early `70's) that Americans at
the founding wanted to be free from governing and concern with government rather than free to
exert themselves in self-governing. This is a luxury we can no longer afford, perhaps could
never afford. May it soon be said again, in a voice not of innocence but of experience, that
America has a functioning democracy.
Colonel John Hughes-Wilson served in the British Army's Intelligence Corps for 30 years and is a
specialist consultant to the UN and the European Union. He is the author of A Brief History of the Cold
War, Military Intelligence Blunders, and The Pupper Masters.
In 1963, and the idea that the President of the United States could be gunned down in broad daylight
was almost unbelievable. In America men and women wept openly in the streets for their dead leader.
But events soon began to unpick the original version of what happened. It turned out that the official
report was little more than a crude government whitewash designed to hide the real truth. Even American
Presidents admitted as much. President Nixon memorably confessed in private that the "Warren Report
was the biggest hoax ever perpetuated" on the American public. It began to emerge that maybe Lee
Harvey Oswald, the original "one nut gunman," may not have acted on his own; others were involved,
too. That meant no "lone gunman," but a conspiracy. This book attempts to answer the big question:
who really shot JFK? And, more important still, exactly why was he shot?
John Hughes-Wilson argues that the murder of John Kennedy was, like the murder of Julius Caesar
2,000 years before, nothing less than a bloody coup d’état by his political enemies, a conspiracy
hell bent on removing a leader who was threatening the power and the money of the ruling establishment.
Pointing the finger at Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, and the Mafia, John joins Jackie and Bobby Kennedy
in their conclusion that the assassination of JFK was far more complex than a deranged attack by
Lee Harvey Oswald, the 24-year-old ex-Marine.
That was the moment when military-industrial complex obtained full power over the US people. In
other words it was a classic Coup d'état... As Stephen Courts stated in his review of the book : "The
chapter on the Roots Of The JFK Assassination - A Banana Republic, The CIA And The Mob is an excellent
primer on the skullduggery of the CIA acting to protect the neo-colonial masters by Coup d'état's and
This book will open your eyes to the case like no other work before
There have been endless works on the assassination of JFK and who was behind it. From a gang
of hobos to angry Cuban expats, the list of possible conspirators is numerous and all theories
have been covered to some extent. What hasn't been covered before is the larger context that
the assassination took place in and how it is still relevant to our current political climate,
until now with Jerome Corsi's new book Who Really Killed Kennedy?
Corsi's essential argument is that the plot to kill Kennedy was hatched by military and financial
elites who were displeased with Kennedy's unwillingness to go along with their plans for a New
World Order. Presenting new and overlooked evidence, Dr. Corsi argues his case with thorough
documentation and persuasive analyses that offers an enlightening perspective for the reader.
His argument that it was powerful elements within the government and their allies in
the military-industrial complex and financial institutions is also a more plausible theory than
others that have been suggested due to the fact that they would've had the ability to cover
up the conspiracy and they directly benefitted from the death of JFK. They were able to
increase America's involvement in Vietnam and create the kind of military that would be able
to protect their interests across the world. It offers a theory for why America would get involved
in such conflicts as Iraq and Syria when there seems to be no vested interest for our country
to get involved.
Whether you believe his theory or not, this book is an engaging read and offers a new perspective
on the assassination that shocked a nation and changed the course of history. I recommend this
book as it looks to be the best account of the assassination that has been published so far.
Steve Glass on September 17, 2013
The America of JFK is dead.
This is the book to understand the machinations that set in position dominoes that would
fall, helping bring about the "End of History" Fukuyama wrote about.
Call it a New World Order or the Anglo-American Order, Dr. Corsi makes a convincing case
the assassination of JFK was the final nail in the coffin of the old republic and the birth
of something else.
Stephen Courts by October 16, 2013
I was skeptical of Corsi due to his character assassination of John Kerry, when Dubya was
fricking AWOL and a pretend pilot. Avoiding Viet Nam by circumventing the draft through the
Air National Guard. However Corsi has written a very good book that has new information and
provocative chapters, like the Grassy Knoll with Sniper/Author Craig Roberts. There are a number
of errors with dates and names which is inexcusable coming from a full time writer. He mixes
up Epstein for Fonzi and has JFK giving a speech in 1970 and has Clay Shaw almost breaking the
case when he meant Jim Garrison. The book could have used a proof reader with a little experience.
I was not swayed by the KGB defector who claimed Khrushchev was seeking revenge for the Cuban
Missile Crisis. Not true. James Douglass has written a masterpiece in JFK & The Unspeakable,
Why He Died & Why It Matters debunking this nonsense. This chapter Oswald, The KGB, And The
Plots To Assassinate JFK IN Chicago And Tampa is accurate except for the Khrushchev part. Chicago
and Tampa were real assassination attempts on President Kennedy. To my pleasant surprise Mr.
Corsi gives full credit to one courageous Secret Service Agent who assisted in the Chicago attempt
on November 2, 1963. That would of course be Abraham Bolden, who would suffer significantly
for truth telling in 1964 after attempting to reach the "Johnson Commission" with information
about the attempts on President Kennedy's life and the lax, at best, security surrounding him.
The chapter on the Roots Of The JFK Assassination - A Banana Republic, The CIA And The
Mob is an excellent primer on the skullduggery of the CIA acting to protect the neo-colonial
masters by Coup d'état's and assassinations. Very well written and researched, sowing the
seeds of "how to" for future Coup's, including the execution of President Kennedy. Similarly
the chapter on Cuba, Nixon & Watergate is full of excellent research. In all there are seven
chapters and a conclusion and except for the former Romanian intelligence officer Ion Mihai
Pacepa, the entire book is full of solid research. To his credit Corsi gives due recognition
to the premier researchers such as Douglass, James DiEugenio, Mary Ferrell, Gaeton Fonzi and
Russ Baker and others.
While he suspects George H.W. Bush (I do too), Nixon and of course LBJ and most importantly
the Military and CIA (Dulles), he stops short of calling the execution "State Sponsored".
In so many words he alludes to this, but Vincent Salandria called this as early as 1963-64 for
what it was. It was and continues to be a State Sponsored Coup d'état directed at the highest
level of the Military, "Intelligence" and Corporate leaders. I particularly liked the history
(I have read it before) of the Dulles', George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush and their duplicitous
and traitorous involvement in support of Hitler. The section on Reinhard Gehlen would be very
fascinating if more people would READ and understand how Fascism was imported to the United
States post World War 2. Most people are unfortunately like Allen Dulles said, not readers.
This information would be an excellent avenue of informing Americans of how the Fourth Reich
has come to our country.
I was at the end pleasantly surprised at how much I liked the book. I read it twice over
about 4 days. I already knew a lot about the evidence, but did learn some things I was not up
to speed on. This is a highly recommended book for both the experienced and the novice reader
interested in how the United States has become what it is today, compared to what it might have
been if JFK had served out his two terms. JFK's vision of self sufficient third world mineral
wealthy countries and the new One World Government we now have is beautifully explained by Mr.
Corsi. This is a book you will want to read a second time and maybe a third time. Get it and
overlook the few errors and see the big picture. You will not be disappointed unless you believe
LHO alone, without confederates, shot and killed President Kennedy. So my friends like SV Anderson/David
Von Pein, Patrick Collins and other paid prostitutes of the CIA and MI-6 can save their emails
rebutting this book. If you see a one or two star review for this book, it will have come from
those type of paid disinformation specialists.
In the 1970s, Congressman Otis Pike of New York chaired a
special congressional committee to investigate abuses by the American so-called "intelligence
community" – the spies. After the investigation, Pike commented:
It took this investigation to convince me that I had always been told lies, to make me realize
that I was tired of being told lies.
I'm tired of the spies telling lies, too.
Pike's investigation initiated one of the first congressional oversight debates for the vast
and hidden collective of espionage agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security Agency (NSA).
Before the Pike Commission, Congress was kept in the dark about them – a tactic designed to thwart
congressional deterrence of the sometimes illegal and often shocking activities carried out by the
"intelligence community". Today, we are seeing a repeat of this professional voyeurism by our nation's
spies, on an unprecedented and pervasive scale.
US House of
Representatives voted on
an amendment – offered by Representatives Justin Amash and John Conyers – that would have curbed
the NSA's omnipresent and inescapable tactics. Despite furious lobbying by the intelligence industrial
complex and its allies, and four hours of frantic and overwrought briefings by the NSA's General
Keith Alexander, 205 of 422 Representatives
voted for the amendment.
Though the amendment barely failed, the vote signaled a clear message to the NSA: we do not trust
you. The vote also conveyed another, more subtle message: members of Congress do not trust that
the House Intelligence Committee is providing the necessary oversight. On the contrary, "oversight"
has become "overlook".
Despite being a member of Congress possessing security clearance, I've learned far more about
government spying on me and my fellow citizens from reading media reports than I have from "intelligence"
briefings. If the vote on the Amash-Conyers amendment is any indication, my colleagues feel the
same way. In fact, one long-serving conservative Republican told me that he doesn't attend such
briefings anymore, because, "they always lie".
Many of us worry that Congressional Intelligence Committees are more loyal to the "intelligence
community" that they are tasked with policing, than to the Constitution. And the House Intelligence
Committee isn't doing anything to assuage our concerns.
requested classified information, and further meetings with NSA officials. The House Intelligence
refused to provide either. Supporters of the NSA's vast ubiquitous domestic spying operation
assure the public that members of Congress can be briefed on these activities whenever they want.
Saxby Chambliss says all a member of Congress needs to do is ask for information, and he'll
get it. Well I did ask, and the House Intelligence Committee said "no", repeatedly. And virtually
every other member not on the Intelligence Committee gets the same treatment.
Recently, a member of the House Intelligence Committee was asked at a town hall meeting, by his
constituents, why my requests for more information about these programs were being denied. This
member argued that I
don't have the necessary level of clearance to obtain access for classified information. That
doesn't make any sense; every member is given the same level of clearance.
There is no legal justification for imparting secret knowledge about the NSA's domestic surveillance
activities only to the 20 members of the House Intelligence Committee. Moreover, how can the remaining
415 of us do our job properly, when we're kept in the dark – or worse, misinformed?
Edward Snowden's revelations
demonstrate that the members of Congress, who are asked to authorize these programs, are not privy
to the same information provided to junior analysts at the NSA, and even private contractors who
sell services to foreign governments. The only time that these intelligence committees disclose
classified information to us, your elected representatives, is when it serves the purposes of the
As the country continues to debate the supposed benefits of wall-to-wall spying programs on each
and every American, without probable cause, the spies, "intelligence community" and Congressional
Intelligence Committees have a choice: will they begin sharing comprehensive information about these
activities, so that elected public officials have the opportunity to make informed decisions about
whether such universal snooping is necessary, or constitutional?
Or will they continue to obstruct our efforts to understand these programs, and force us to rely
on information provided by whistleblowers who undertake substantial risks to disseminate this information
about violations of our freedom in an increasingly hostile environment? And why do Generals Alexander
and Clapper remain in office, when all the evidence points to them committing the felony of
lying to Congress and the American people?
Representative Pike would probably say that rank-and-file representatives will never get the
information we need from the House Intelligence Committee, because the spying industrial complex
answers only to itself. After all, Pike, and many of the members of his special congressional committee,
voted against forming it. As it is now constituted, the House Intelligence Committee will never
decry, deny, or defy any spy. They see eye-to-eye, so they turn a blind eye. Which means that if
we rely on them, we can kiss our liberty good-bye.
I suggest that you read Cyril Northcote Parkinson's essay on committees and how they work.
It appears in the book Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress.
That will explain why in any large committee only a few people ever really know what is happening
and arrange all the significant decisions before every meeting.
I assume your advice is for readers because surely you'd not advise a seating, twice elected
congressman to read a book on how committees work?
In case you didn't understand one of the main points of Grayson's article, all members of
Congress have the same security clearance and committees are by law required to provide information
when requested by any member. He was illegally denied such information.
Though the amendment barely failed, the vote signaled a clear message to the NSA: we do not
trust you. The vote also conveyed another, more subtle message: members of Congress do not trust
that the House Intelligence Committee is providing the necessary oversight. On the contrary,
"oversight" has become "overlook".
I know this is meant to be reassuring, and I really do welcome push back, but with all due
respect, this is a bit like saying of the bombing of Hiroshima: We hear there was a bit of a
problem in Japan.
Crimes have been committed. Aggressive, grievous, unforgivable ones. Ones calculated to do
long term damage. Ones that have eroded the world's trust in us (awoke to hear about Germany's
fury over the revelation that Merkel was being tapped). It is long past time to be a bit concerned.
The words "law" and "due process" and "international norms" mean nothing if the US gets to keep
ignoring them with impunity. It is high time that there were calls for investigations with the
full intent to follow through with serious consequences. Until that happens, Congress is not
taking this seriously and is not doing its job.
Afaye -> AhBrightWings
Well said AhBrightWings!
Or will they continue to obstruct our efforts to understand these programs, and force us to
rely on information provided by whistleblowers who undertake substantial risks to disseminate
this information about violations of our freedom in an increasingly hostile environment? And
why do Generals Alexander and Clapper remain in office, when all the evidence points to them
committing the felony of lying to Congress and the American people?
So you are effectively saying that Congress doesn't know anything. Doesn't this mean that
a cabal of unelected people are running the US? If there's no effective oversight then it's
a coup. Who do they answer to if not congress? If they can get away also with televised bare-faced
lies to Congress and get away with it, then what's the point at all in having a Congress?
And why do Generals Alexander and Clapper remain in office, when all the evidence points
to them committing the felony of lying to Congress and the American people?
I think the reason is clear. These guys are part of a government takeover and they can't
be removed. Even when they retire, they or their friends will be pulling the strings. Blackmail
is the order of the day, and our republic, like the Roman republic before it, is just a empty
"And why do Generals Alexander and Clapper remain in office, when all the evidence points
to them committing the felony of lying to Congress and the American people?"
And what exact actions are you taking to help push forward the prosecutions of these two,
Are most members of Congress extremely naive, under some influence or just stupid? Have they
forgotten the cautionary tale of Hoover, the historical examples of secret police/surveillance
forces like the Stasi? What did they imagine would happen when they gave nearly unlimited power
with virtually no oversight to spy agencies that were allowed to operate within the country
and amass almost total knowledge of all telecommunications, both domestic and foreign? This
might be expected of Obama, who came in with no knowledge of the banking, health, defence or
"security" sectors, but members of Congress are not generally unexperienced rookies. Are a few
lobbyist dollars really enough for these people to betray their country, to allow its democratic
institutions to be undermined or subverted?
TyroneBHorneigh -> FatMike
"Are a few lobbyist dollars really enough for these people to betray their country, to allow
its democratic institutions to be undermined or subverted?"
The short answer is the same as the long answer, YES.
This is very embarrassing for the USA. It has shown that your government is being manipulated
in the same way as the politburo was in the USSR by the KGB.
Spying on allies for trade gain and intelligence will not be forgotten easily. You have a
willing British government on your side, but only because they are thick and think the spying
is all about counter-terrorism.
This is woeful. Woeful for western freedom and woeful for trust between nations.
@Alan Grayson -
"... every member [of Congress] is given the same level of clearance [to obtain access to
classified information] ... There is no legal justification for imparting secret knowledge about
the NSA's domestic surveillance activities only to the 20 members of the House Intelligence
The rationale is quite simple. As long as those 20 are uniquely privileged with "inside"
information, their loyalty can be counted on as members of the NSA "club".
Allowing them SPECIAL access to club secrets flatters their pride as ESPECIALLY trustworthy,
and SUPREMELY capable of understanding complex issues and technologies ... unlike Congress's
"riff-raff" and "ignoramuses" in the "common herd".
Once securely in the fold, those 20 will protect the NSA's interests - and, of course, secrets
- as jealously as they guard their own self-esteem.
You're quite right to "worry that Congressional oversight committees are more loyal to the
'intelligence community' that they are tasked with policing than to the Constitution".
That's indeed where their loyalty lies.
Good article Grayson and it's good to see that many senators are now awake to what Snowden
The House Intelligence Committee is in fact doing the US more damage than it realises by
not releasing data to any, and all senators. What their behaviour implies is that they have
something serious to hide and don't want to be found out. Don't know what the rules are in the
US, but surely these people can be removed from office if they are not assisting senators to
do their jobs properly? Is it not America who continually spouted, transparency and openness?
The House Intelligence Committee is part of America is it not? The committee is there to serve,
not to be served.
As for Alexander and Clapper both have lied to congress, to the people of the US as well
as those round the world. If they are allowed to get away with this, then how can any senator
in either party, or the president stand for upholding the rule of law? it would also make it
impossible for a judge to convict someone because the law has to be applicable to all, or else
none at all.
The NSA have done great damage, it has no good reputation and it would seem the House Intelligence
Committee are adding to that, by their very questionable behaviour and conduct.
Recall how even before the Snowden revelations when Senators Wyden and Udall were making
subtle noises about how the NSA MAY have been overstepping its authority--Senator Udall's brother
was discovered dead on a wilderness hiking trail. A warning shot across Udall's bow??
I would like to say, I think not. But in the current environment I would similarly say, it's
not out of the realm of possibility.
thedongerneedfood -> TyroneBHorneigh
In its coverage of Hastings' death, the Canada Free Press noted:
It appears that Mr. Hastings made multiple contacts with sources directly associated
with the illegal NSA domestic spying program, and either recently acquired materials and/or
information about the extent of, the targets of, and the recipients of the information of
domestic spying program.
"It is speculated that the latter information was of particular concern to as yet unidentified
individuals holding positions of authority within the US Department of Defense and their
subcontractors, as well as certain parties within the Executive branch of the United States
"Investigation and research suggests that Mr. Hastings might have obtained, or arranged
to obtain, information pertaining to the role of a particular high-ranking officer within
the US military overseeing the domestic aspects of the NSA project.
"[..]In a world where American Presidents openly arrogate to themselves the right to
kill people deemed enemies of the United States, all things suddenly become possible. When
the basic right of habeas corpus can be denied to American citizens, based upon unproven
allegations of their being threats to this country, isn’t it possible for those with the
power to detain and to eliminate individuals, to make decisions as to someone’s existence
doing harm to this country? Finally, doesn’t this unconstitutional expansion of powers give
individuals with government connections the leeway to take revenge on those who expose them?
While I’m not privy to knowledge of the actions of those in power and can claim no inside
information, I certainly can speculate based on the experience of my lifetime. This then
is my speculation about the death and life of Michael Hastings in the context of current
life in these United States."
Just this week General Alexander, the head of the NSA with a long track record of misleading
lying to government, was
forced to admit that the endemic surveillance programmes have only helped to foil a couple of
terrorist plots. This is a big difference from the previous number of 54 that he was touting around.
Cue calls for the surveillance to be reined in, at least against Americans. In future such surveillance
should be restricted to targeted individuals who are being actively investigated. Which is all well
and good, but would still leave the rest of the global population living their lives under the baleful
stare of the US panopticon. And if the capability continues to exist to watch the rest of the world,
how can Americans be sure that the NSA et al won't stealthily go back to watching them
once the scandal has died down - or just ask their best buddies in GCHQ to do their dirty work for
I'm sure that the UK's GCHQ will be happy to step into the breach. It is already partially funded
by the NSA, to the tune of
$100 million over the last few years; it has a long history of circumventing US constitutional
rights to spy on US citizens (as foreigners), and then simply passing on this information to the
grateful NSA, as we know from the old
Echelon scandal; and it has
far more legal leeway under British oversight laws. In fact, this is positively seen to be a
selling point to the Americans from what we have seen in the Snowden disclosures.
Satellite dishes are seen at GCHQ's outpost at Bude, close to where trans-Atlantic fibre-optic cables
come ashore in Cornwall, southwest England (Reuters / Kieran Doherty)
GCHQ is absolutely correct in this assessment - the three primary UK intelligence agencies are
the least accountable and most legally protected in any western democracy. Not only are they exempt
from any real and meaningful oversight, they are also protected against disclosure by the draconian
1989 Official Secrets Act, designed specifically to criminalise whistleblowers, as well as having
raft of legislation to suppress media reporting should such disclosures emerge.
Defenders of the status quo have already been out in force. Foreign Secretary William
Hague, who is notionally responsible for GCHQ, said cosily that everything was
legal and proportionate,
and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the current chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee in parliament
staunchly declared that the ISC had investigated GCHQ and found that its data mining was all
legal as it had ministerial approval.
Well that's all OK then. Go back to sleep, citizens of the UK.
What Hague and Rifkind neglected to say was that the ministerial warrantry system was designed
to target individual suspects, not whole populations. Plus, as the Foreign secretary in charge of
MI6 at the time of the illegal assassination plot against Gaddafi in 1996,
Rifkind of all people should know that the spies are "economical
with the truth".
as I've written before, many former top spies and police have admitted that they misled lied
to the ISC. Sure, Rifkind has managed to acquire some new powers of oversight for the ISC, but they
are still too little and 20 years too late.
This mirrors what has been going on in the US over the last few years, with senior intelligence
official after senior official being caught out lying to congressional committees. While in the
UK statements to the ISC have to date not been made under oath, statements made to the US Congress
are - so why on earth are apparent perjurers like Clapper and Alexander even still in a job, let
alone not being prosecuted?
It appears that the US is learning well from its former colonial master about all things official
secrecy, up to and including illegal operations that can be hushed up with the nebulous and legally
undefined concept of "national security", the use of fake intelligence to take us to war, and the
persecution of whistleblowers.
Except the US has inevitably super-sized the war on whistleblowers. While in the UK we started
out with the 1911 Official Secrets Act, under which traitors could be imprisoned for 14 years, in
1989 the law was amended to include whistleblowers - for which the penalty is 2 years on each charge.
President Obama and the US intelligence establishment are using this law to wage a war on whistleblowers.
During his presidency he has tried to prosecute seven whistleblowers under this Espionage Act -
more than all the previous presidents combined - and yet when real spies are caught, as in the case
of the Russian Spy Ring in 2010, Obama was happy to cut a deal and send them home.
SOA/WHISC- not an issue of the past December 20, 2001
Jack Neslon-Pallmeyer's new book, School of Assassins: Guns Greed and Globalization, brings
the history and development of the School of the Americas, including its recent name change
to The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, into perspective along with the
developments of the global and national economies and militaries.
In a time when the role of the SOA/WHISC is being seriously and persistently challenged,
the name change and other cosmetic alterations represent a need to continue to build and strengthen
the thoughtfulness and articulation of the movement and voices that are calling for the school's
closure. This book ties together many of the critical issues at play in the debate over the
SOA/WHISC and puts it in the context of the role it has in the world today, as well as how it
has developed and changed with the changing world and economy in which we all live. One of the
key points stressed in this book is that the SOA/WHISC's role has never been stagnant or unaltered,
but rather that it has and continues to change along with the goals of the United States foreign
policy. The purpose and role that the SOA/WHISC fulfilled at its inception is not the same as
the purpose it is serving today. The US foreign policy, beginning around the time the SOA was
opened in Panama, has evolved throughout different stages, each trying to maintain a different
balance between military and economic strategies and tactics to enforce and implement its goals:
Beginning in a period of major military domination, the SOA was created at a time
when military repression and power was the main way of enforcing and achieving the US foreign
However, economic tools and leverage, such as those achieved by the International Monetary
Fund and The World Bank, began to gain momentum and strength as efficient ways of implementing
foreign policy. The second stage of US foreign policy was thus a balance between the
growing use of economic leverage and the lessening of the need for military repression.
During the third stage that the SOA/WHISC functioned in, economic power implemented
through the afore mentioned institutions and their programs (such as Structural Adjustment
Programs), took the front line in US foreign policy. The decreasing role of the need
for military and violent repression in this stage had a great impact. It threatened and
concerned those in the military to seek ways to maintain the immense budget and importance
of the military at a time when it was not really being used or was as necessary.
This "military industrial complex" is another key issues at stake in Nelson-Pallmeyer's
book, and plays a large role in the remilitarization that characterizes the fourth stage
of US foreign policy. The SOA/WHISC's role in the present day is greatly founded on
this remilitarization as an important tool in order to achieve the goals and stability desired
by the US foreign policy.
The new name given to the SOA represents a face lift, as many refer to it, which attempts
to make the goals of the SOA/WHISC seem worthy of the absurd amount of money the US government
budget allots the military.
Nelson-Pallmeyer makes a point that the
" `any means necessary' foreign policy is possible when advocates are convinced
that the means they employ, whether the torturer's hand or the banker's rules, are justified
because they promote the common good or protect particular interests they represent" (98).
Changing the name of the SOA to WHISC, along with the other cosmetic curriculum changes,
is attempting to do just this; to create a new image of the school that is one promoting `security
cooperation' and human rights. As this book states, however, these changes do not represent
any sense of remorse, accountability, or separation from the past policies and deeds that a
truly new institution would need to be based on.
The impact of corporate-led globalization is another key issue in The School of Assassins:
Guns Greed and Globalization; and likewise, is a factor that plays into the remilitarization
that characterizes stage four of US foreign policy. Although globalization, as stated by
Nelson-Pallmeyer, is a reality, corporate-led globalization is not inevitable and is furthermore,
undesirable. Corporate-led globalization undermines democracy, aggravates problems rooted
in inequality, and is altogether destabilizing. This destabilization in turn becomes a reason
for remilitarization, and a problem to be handled through military repression rather than systematic,
economic, and global changes. Corporate-led globalization is not the beneficial development
or progress that the myths make it out to be.
Finally, the debate and struggle around the SOA/WHISC is but a glimpse at the greater picture,
the tip of an immense iceberg. Nelson-Pallmeyer states that "the SOA is a window through which
US foreign policy can be seen clearly" (xvii). The struggle and movement to close the SOA/WHISC
is also fighting against many of the greater issues at stake in our foreign policy and international
involvement and is only one of many battles to be fought. Closure of the SOA/WHISC will not
appease or end the movement, just allow it to move on to the next battle. Many of the aspects
of the US foreign policy that break down the false image of the benevolent superpower are brought
in to focus through connections and impacts on the SOA/WHISC. The SOA/WHISC is like a case
study of the many components and factors of US foreign policy and its goals. In exposing oneself
to the SOA/WHISC debate, history, and struggle, it is inevitable to come to some greater understanding
of the US's involvement and true goals in its foreign policy and international affairs. This
book is atriculate, thought provoking, and worth reading.
The President cannot resist the slouch towards war, for just the same reason he has failed to
live up to the rest of his speechifying. It is the one he gave, as quoted in The Christian Century,
for the failures to reform Wall Street’s rampant and aggravated banksterism: “I would have liked
to, but it would have pissed off too many powerful people.”
With recidivist mendacity even
more starkly shadowed against the truth in recent surveillance revelations, it seems in doubt
that the first part of that excuse is fully true, though the latter assuredly is.
There is simply too much of a revenue stream for donorist elites to give up constant war.
The rewards for elusive success are for them a risk-free investment, with losses socialized
by the American people and benefits privatized for themselves.
Now that the White House has come to the conclusion that Bashar al-Assad has indeed employed
chemical weapons on a small scale against the Syrian opposition, the questions over what to do next
have taken on ever greater urgency. Speaking to CNN recently, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said that
"we should be able to establish a no-fly zone relatively easily." Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) also
expressed his support for a no-fly zone, while House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers
(R-MI) stated, “The United States should assist the Turks and our Arab League partners to create
safe zones in Syria from which the U.S. and our allies can train, arm, and equip vetted opposition
forces.” So as the pro-interventionist rhetoric heats up, it might be to our benefit to step back
and consider whether or not committing an act of war against Syria, and that is precisely what establishing
a no-fly zone would entail, would be justified under the tenets of Just War Theory.
The term ‘just war’ was first used by Augustine of Hippo in The City of God, and the concept
was later refined and codified by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century. Just War Theory had, until
the advent of the Bush Doctrine of preventive war in 2003, commonly served as the set of criteria
which had to be met in order for a nation-state to morally justify the commencement of hostilities
against another nation-state. It consists of 2 categories: Jus Ad Bellum (right to war) and
Jus In Bello (law in war).
To meet the requirements of Jus Ad Bellum, 4 conditions must be met: Just Cause, Just
Intention, Just Authority, and Last Resort. The question we need to answer, then, is: does the Assad
regime’s use of chemical weapons against the Syrian rebels provide the U.S. with Just Cause that
would allow it to commit an act of war against Syria? At no time since the commencement of hostilities
between the parties within Syria in March 2011 has the Assad regime attacked either the U.S. or
any of its allies, skirmishes on the Syrian/Turkish border notwithstanding. In order that the requirement
of Just Cause be met, the U.S. would had to have been attacked (or was in actual imminent
danger of being attacked) by the Assad regime. This has not happened, and so the justification for
the establishment of a no-fly zone would not be met. As such, the requirement of Just Intention
would also not be met because a nation-state cannot commence hostilities without a legitimate cause
and still claim right intention.
What about the requirement of Just Authority? Let’s say hypothetically that Assad had in fact
launched a direct attack on the U.S. or one of its allies. While the U.S. would then have cause
to engage in hostilities against Syria, it would, in order to meet the requirement of Just Authority,
have to do so with explicit authorization from the U.S. Senate. Unilateral acts of war initiated
solely by the Executive (such as the Nixon administration’s secret bombing of Cambodia) are verboten
under Just War theory.
The condition of Last Resort would only be met once every last peaceful option had been exhausted.
We are clearly far from meeting the criterion of Last Resort as things stand right now; the US and
Russia are working on convening a peace conference between the two sides in Geneva this July and
there still, according to Middle East expert Dr. Vali Nasr, remain "powerful economic sanctions
that the U.S. could use to cripple the Assad regime."
The category of Jus In Bello has mainly to do with the conduct of a war once joined and
as such is somewhat less of a concern at this stage, but a few points might be worth making. Three
conditions, those of Proportionality, Discrimination, and Responsibility must be met in order to
satisfy the requirements of Jus In Bello. Taken together, they are intended to serve as safeguards
against indiscriminate violence against noncombatants and disproportionate actions against enemy
nation-states. The principles of Jus In Bello are enshrined in the Geneva Conventions of
1949, which, it never hurts to remind the war hawks in Congress, the U.S. is still a party to. If
our recent history of Greater Middle Eastern interventions is any guide, we would be hard pressed
to be able to honestly say to ourselves, or to the international community, that we possess the
competence to fulfill any of these three conditions.
Writing at the dawn of the Cold War almost 60 years ago, the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr warned
against ‘the monstrous consequences of moral complacency about the relation of dubious means to
supposedly good ends.’ This is a lesson that has, I’m afraid to say, been lost on the most vocal
proponents of war with Syria. If the United States proceeds to act on the recommendations of the
interventionists without paying heed to the ancient and venerable tradition of Just War Theory then
no good – despite the best of intentions – will come of the effort.
Until recently James Carden served as an Adviser to the Office of Russian Affairs at the State
Department. He has contributed pieces on foreign affairs to The National Interest and
The Moscow Times.
Some commentators have pounced on Snowden’s disclosures to denounce the role of private contractors
in the world of government and national security, arguing that such work is best left to public
servants. But their criticism misses the point.
It is no longer possible to determine the difference between employees of the U.S. National Security
Agency (NSA) or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the employees of companies such as Booz
Allen, who have integrated to the extent that they slip from one role in industry to another in
government, cross-promoting each other and self-dealing in ways that make the fabled revolving door
redundant, if not completely disorienting.
To best understand this tale, one must first turn to R. James Woolsey, a former director of CIA,
who appeared before the U.S. Congress in the summer of 2004 to promote the idea of integrating U.S.
domestic and foreign spying efforts to track “terrorists”.
One month later, he appeared on MSNBC television, where he spoke of the urgent need to create
a new U.S. intelligence czar to help expand the post-9/11 national surveillance apparatus.
On neither occasion did Woolsey mention that he was employed as senior vice president for global
strategic security at Booz Allen, a job he held from 2002 to 2008.
In a prescient suggestion of what Snowden would later reveal, Woolsey went on to discuss expanding
surveillance to cover domestic, as well as foreign sources.
“One source will be our vulnerability assessments, based on our own judgments about weak links
in our society’s networks that can be exploited by terrorists,” he said. “A second source will be
domestic intelligence. How to deal with such information is an extraordinarily difficult issue in
our free society.”
In late July 2004, Woolsey appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball”, a news-talk show hosted by Chris Matthews,
and told Matthews that the federal government needed a new high-level office – a director of national
intelligence – to straddle domestic and foreign intelligence. Until then, the director of the CIA
served as the head of the entire U.S. intelligence community.
Upon retiring as DNI, McConnell returned to
Booz Allen in 2009, where
he serves as vice chairman to this day. In August 2010, Lieutenant General James Clapper (retired),
a former vice president for military intelligence at Booz Allen from 1997 to 1998,
was hired as the fourth intelligence czar, a job he has held ever since. Indeed, one-time
Booz Allen executives have
filled the position five of the eight years of its existence.
When these two men took charge of the national-security state, they helped expand and privatize
it as never before.
McConnell, for example, asked Congress to alter the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to
allow the NSA to spy on foreigners without a warrant if they were using Internet technology that
routed through the United States.
Snowden’s job at Booz Allen’s offices in Hawaii was to maintain the NSA’s information technology
systems. While he did not specify his precise connection to Prism, he told the South China Morning
Post newspaper that the NSA hacked “network backbones – like huge Internet routers, basically –
that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to
hack every single one”.
Indeed Woolsey had argued in favor of such surveillance following the disclosure of the NSA’s
warrantless wiretapping by the New York Times in December 2005.
the Cold War, our intelligence requirements are not just overseas,” he told a Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing on the NSA in February 2006. “Courts are not designed to deal with fast-moving
battlefield electronic mapping in which an al Qaeda or a Hezbollah computer might be captured which
contains a large number of email addresses and phone numbers which would have to be checked out
Propaganda PuppetsRoger Cressey, a senior vice president for cybersecurity
and counter-terrorism at
Booz Allen who is
also a paid commentator for NBC News, went on air multiple times to explain how the government
would pursue the Boston Marathon case in April 2013. “We always need to understand there
are priority targets the counter-terrorism community is always looking at,” he told the
This was not the first time that Cressey had been caught at this when speaking to NBC
News. Cressey failed to disclose that his former employer – Good Harbor Consulting - had
been paid for advice by the government of Yemen, when he went on air to criticize democracy
protests in Yemen in March 2011. (Cressey has just been hired by
Booz Allen at the
Booz Allen also won a chunk of the Pentagon’s infamous Total Information Awareness contract in
2001 to collect information on potential terrorists in America from phone records, credit card receipts
and other databases – a controversial program defunded by Congress in 2003 but whose spirit survived
in Prism and other initiatives disclosed by Snowden.
The CIA pays a Booz Allen
team led by William Wansley, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, for “strategic and business
planning” for its National Clandestine Service, which conducts covert operations and recruits foreign
The company also provides a 120-person team, headed by a former U.S. Navy cryptology lieutenant
commander and Booz Allen senior
executive adviser Pamela Lentz, to support the National Reconnaissance Organization, the Pentagon
agency that manages the nation’s military spy satellites.
Last month, the U.S. Navy picked
Booz Allen as part of a consortium
to work on yet another billion-dollar project for “a new generation of intelligence, surveillance
and combat operations”.
How does Booz Allen wins
these contracts? Well, in addition to its connections with the DNI, the company boasts that half
of its 25,000 employees are cleared for "top secret-sensitive compartmented intelligence" - one
of the highest possible security ratings. (One third of the 1.4 million people with such clearances
work for the private sector.)
A key figure at Booz Allen
is Ralph Shrader, current chairman, CEO and president, who came to the company in 1974 after working
at two telecommunications companies – RCA, where he served in the company’s government communications
system division and Western Union, where he was national director of advanced systems planning.
In an interview with the Financial Times in 1998, Shrader noted that the most relevant background
for his new position of chief executive at
Booz Allen was his experience
working for telecommunications clients and doing classified military work for the US government.
Caught for Shoddy Work
How much value for money is the government getting? A review of some of Booz Allen's public contracts
suggests that much of this work has been of poor quality.
"Booz Allen did not uncover indications and signals of broader systemic ethical issues within
the U.S. Air Force legal counsel. "These events caused the Air Force to have serious concerns
regarding the responsibility of Booz Allen, specifically, its San Antonio office, including its
business integrity and honesty, compliance with government contracting requirements, and the adequacy
of its ethics program."
It should be noted that Booz
Allen reacted swiftly to the government investigation of the conflict of interest. In April
that year, the
Air Force lifted the suspension – but only after
Booz Allen had accepted responsibility
for the incident and
fired Meneses, as well as agreeing to pay the air force $65,000 and reinforce the firm's ethics
Not everybody was convinced about the new regime. "Unethical behavior brought on by the revolving
door created problems for Booz Allen, but now the revolving door may have come to the rescue,"
wrote Scott Amey of the Project on Government Oversight, noting that noting that Del Eulberg,
vice-president of the Booz Allen's San Antonio office had served as chief engineer in the Air Force.
"It couldn't hurt having (former Air Force people). Booz is likely exhaling a sigh of relief
as it has received billions of dollars in air force contracts over the years."
That very month, Booz Allen
was hired to build a $10 million "Enhanced Secured Network" (ESN) for the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission. An audit of the project released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office this past
February showed that it was full of holes.
Incidentally, both the NASA and the Air Force incidents were brought to light by a company whistleblower
who informed the government.
Investigate Booz Allen, Not Edward Snowden
When Snowden revealed the extent of the U.S. national surveillance program earlier this month,
he was denounced immediately by
Booz Allen and their former
associates who called for an investigation of his leaks.
"For me, it is literally – not figuratively – literally gut-wrenching to see this happen because
of the huge, grave damage it does to our intelligence capabilities," Clapper told
NBC News's Andrea Mitchell. "This is someone who, for whatever reason, has chosen to violate
a sacred trust for this country. I think we all feel profoundly offended by that."
"News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking,
and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values
of our firm," Booz Allen said
in a press statement.
Yet instead of shooting the messenger, Edward Snowden, it might be worth
investigating Shrader and his company's core values in the same way that the CIA and NSA were scrutinized
for Minaret in the 1970s by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations
with Respect to Intelligence Activities, chaired by Frank Church of Idaho in 1975.
Congress would also do well to investigate Clapper, Booz Allen's other famous former employee,
for possible perjury
when he replied: "No, sir" to Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in March, when asked: "Does the NSA
collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
From its origins as a management consulting firm, Booz Allen has quietly grown into a government-wide
contracting behemoth, fed by ballooning post-Sept. 11 intelligence budgets and Washington’s increasing
reliance on outsourcing. With 24,500 employees and 99% of its revenues from the federal government,
its growth in the last decade has been stunning (and until very recently with little to no knowledge
from the main street that it even exists).
In 1940, a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Navy began to think about
what a war with Germany would look like. The admirals worried in particular about the Kriegsmarine’s
fleet of U-boats, which were preying on Allied shipping and proving impossible to find, much less
sink. Stymied, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox turned to Booz, Fry, Allen & Hamilton, a consulting
firm in Chicago whose best-known clients were Goodyear Tire & Rubber (GT) and Montgomery Ward.
The firm had effectively invented management consulting, deploying whiz kids from top
schools as analysts and acumen-for-hire to corporate clients. Working with the Navy’s own
planners, Booz consultants developed a special sensor system that could track the U-boats’ brief-burst
radio communications and helped design an attack strategy around it. With its aid, the Allies by
war’s end had sunk or crippled most of the German submarine fleet.
That project was the start of a long collaboration. As the Cold War set in,
intensified, thawed, and was supplanted by global terrorism in the minds of national security strategists,
the firm, now called Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), focused more and more on government work. In 2008
it split off its less lucrative commercial consulting arm - under the name Booz & Co. - and became
a pure government contractor, publicly traded and majority-owned by private equity firm Carlyle
In the fiscal year ended in March 2013, Booz Allen Hamilton reported $5.76 billion in
revenue, 99 percent of which came from government contracts, and $219 million in net income.
Almost a quarter of its revenue - $1.3 billion - was from major U.S. intelligence agencies. Along
with competitors such as Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), CACI, and BAE Systems
(BAESY), the McLean (Va.)-based firm is a prime beneficiary of an explosion in government spending
on intelligence contractors over the past decade. About 70 percent of the 2013 U.S. intelligence
budget is contracted out, according to a Bloomberg Industries analysis; the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (ODNI) says almost a fifth of intelligence personnel work in the private
It’s safe to say that most Americans, if they’d heard of Booz Allen at all, had no idea
how huge a role it plays in the U.S. intelligence infrastructure. They do now.
Indeed Rand. These greedy corporate bloodsucking bastards hate us for our freedoms.
Meanwhile Obama is now sending weapons direct to Al-qaeda terrorists and cannibals. See
the irony in all this? WHat do the loyal Republicans say about the corporate interests
who suck Washington dry?
Yes. Every day it becomes more apparant that 9/11 created one of the most profitable industries
since WW2. Anti-terrorism.
War is never accidental. It is always carefully manufactured.
- Larry Dallas, 2013
Dwight Eisenhower was SOOOOO right.
Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired, signifies
a theft from those that are hungry and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. --Dwight D. Eisenhower
When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After
my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing: Dwight David Eisenhower
All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I don't
believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that
came in and talked about such a thing: Dwight Eisenhower
If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and
so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom. ”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination
endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper
Dwight D. Eisenhower
As it says - and I always suspected - nobody, not even the President, has a handle let alone
control, of this out-of-control 4th branch of government.
The only real solution is for the elected government to send in a fleet of bulldozers and
demolish the whole lot and arrest every last unelected power-broker.
in other words 9/11 was the best thing ever to happen for Booz and its buddies.........hmmmmm?
One must always ask "Cui bono" when considering the dark side of the universe. After all
war IS a racket.
you're not going to believe this but ..
NBC used to produce a game show called 21. this was back in the nine-teen and 50s.
It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to deceive the listening or viewing
(1) To supply to any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual
knowledge or intellectual skill any special and secret assistance whereby the outcome of such
contest will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.
wait. that's not the amazing part.
we are all contestants in a purportedly bona fide contest, but the outcome is in whole or
in part pre-arranged
wait. that's not the amazing part.
nobody is prosecuting the perpetrators!
but wait. that's not the amazing part.
nobody seems to mind.
Funny,... nothings really changed in the world's geopolitical sense?
The USSR is fast aligning itself with annex'd satellite nations! China is now a super-power
in its own right! Japan is the same ole,.. old infighting hostile nation of nationalist? India
has growing pains as always... what's news!
Africa is still a colonial household for Europe? Germany has unified and still a worry-wart
for the British 'Grey-Poupon!? The UK is still the entire planets grandfather with one foot
in the grave? The ME is going back in time and rethinking its future without Emir's! Afghanistan
is still triumphant-- the empire destroyer?
France is as always a pussy`cunt... as in retarded 'FrenchFry'd!!!
South America likes where it's at post US colonialization, and Mexico has taken back California?!
Lastly, the USSA has accepted the grandiose privilege of adding a well deserved acronym "S"
as in world 'S'saviour... Nought!!!
BAH is now just a (somewhat) better-paid extension of the government given the government
will take almost anyone as a federal employee regardless of (lack of) skill level. As the government
hires more incompetents as government employees to swell the ranks of the Democratic Party,
er, I mean government staff ... what do you need then?
More contractors to do the real work that your government welfare babies, er I mean government
employees, aren't capable of doing themselves. This is how government incompetence breeds more
government incompetence, cost, and waste.
The recommendation 'Go read Andrew Bacevich's "The Limits of Power: The End of American
Exceptionalism" ' expresses by one of the reader is naive. This is a brainwashing exercise, not attempt
to analyze the situation and should be judged as such. Like most mouthpiece of propaganda war of MIC,
this guy knows perfectly well from which side his bread is buttered. He is just trying to justify his
An excellent example of how we get drawn into the military option. No matter how disastrously
Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan turn out to be for us, there are never any real consequences
to those who suck us in.
Those who ought to exercise a proper caution lose their courage fearing that they will get
blamed for the human costs of civil wars in other countries while knowing that as long as they
show proper machismo there will be little criticism of their sending fellow citizens (younger
ones) to become casualties in futile endeavors in foreign lands.
P BrandMemphis, TN
Dear Mr. Keller,
Go read Andrew Bacevich's "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism".
If that doesn't change your mind, read his other books on American interventionism and militarism.
Finally, if that doesn't change your mind, then volunteer yourself and your children to fight
If you want to help us "get over" Iraq perhaps you should go there and work as a volunteer
in the Shite slums of Bagdad to make it into a Jeffersonian democracy. Good luck with that.
oneill.gw, Silver Spring Md.
Are your kids in the military Keller. Would you be okay if a relative or dear friend was
killed in action there? I doubt it
Bob Brown, NYC
I can't agree with much of what you write. Nor do I think we should act militarily.
1. We all tend to make excuses for people we like. The president didn't say the use of gas
would "raise the stakes." He said it's a red line.
2. You wrote that we should have intervened a year ago before the rise of the Jihadists.
But that the president was busy with other things -winding down the war in Afghanistan, Ohio,
etc. Mr. Keller, if anyone on the planet should know how to multitask, it's the POTUS. And if
he's busy, he's supposed to delegate to a proper person for the heavy lifting. I wonder if you
would be so forgiving if a politician you disdained acted in the same way.
3. You write that we should send missiles to take out Assad's airforce. Why? All of the reports
state that the Salafists are in the vanguard and probably a majority of the rebel fighters.
If the rebels win, they will go on a mass killing spree of Alawites, and maybe other minorities.
There is a reason that Syria's minorities have not joined the fight. They know what awaits them
if the rebels win. So, if you're a member of a Syrian minority (30%), or a modern educated woman,
you sure don't want a rebel victory.
4. You write that the US should take the lead and we'll have allies this time. Why take the
lead? Perhaps Britain or France should. France is currently fighting Jihadists in Mali, a former
French colony. Let's remember, the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 gave France the mandate for
How did this happen? There are two versions of this little immorality tale, one coming from the
"left" and the other from the "right" (the scare-quotes are there for a reason, which I’ll get to
in a moment or two).
The "left" version goes something like this:
The evil capitalists, in league with their bought-and-paid for cronies in government, destroyed
and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands
had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed 911 and the emergency team (otherwise
known as the US Congress) came to their rescue, doling out trillions to the looters and leaving
the rest of America to pay the bill.
The "right" version goes something like the following:
Politically connected Wall Streeters, in league with their bought-and-paid-for cronies in
government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when
their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed BIG-GOV-HELP
and the feds showed up with the cash.
The first thing one notices about these two analyses, taken side by side, is their similarity:
yes, the "left" blames the free market, and the "right" blames Big Government, but when you get
past the blame game their descriptions of what actually happened look like veritable twins.
And as much as I agree with the "right" about their proposed solution – a
in government spending – it is the "left" that has the most accurate analysis of who’s to blame.
It is, of course, the big banks – the recipients of bailout loot, the ones who profited (and
continue to profit) from the economic catastrophe that has befallen us.
During the 1930s, the so-called Red Decade, no leftist agitprop was complete without a cartoon
rendering of the top-hatted capitalist with his foot planted firmly on the throat of the proletariat
(usually depicted as a muscular-but-passive male in chains). That imagery, while crude, is largely
correct – an astonishing statement, I know, coming from an avowed
libertarian and "reactionary,"
no less. Yet my leftist pals, and others with a superficial knowledge of libertarianism, will be
even more surprised that
the founder of the modern libertarian movement, also an avowed (and proud) "reactionary," agreed
with me (or, rather,
I with him):
"Businessmen or manufacturers can either be genuine free enterprisers or statists;
they can either make their way on the free market or seek special government favors and privileges.
They choose according to their individual preferences and values. But bankers are inherently
inclined toward statism.
"Commercial bankers, engaged as they are in unsound fractional reserve
credit, are, in the free market, always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Hence they are
always reaching for government aid and bailout.
"Investment bankersdo much of their business underwriting government
bonds, in the United States and abroad. Therefore, they have a vested interest in promoting
deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt.Both sets of bankers, then,
tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions
in domestic and foreign affairs."
That’s Murray N. Rothbard, the great libertarian theorist and economist, in his classic monograph
Wall Street, Banks,
and American Foreign Policy. If you want a lesson in the real motivations behind our foreign
policy of global intervention, starting at the very dawn of the American empire, you have only to
read this fascinating treatise. The essence of it is this: the very rich have stayed very
rich in what would otherwise be a dynamic and ever-changing economic free-for-all by securing government
favors, enjoying state-granted monopolies, and using the US military as their private security guards.
Conservatives who read Rothbard’s short book will never look at the Panama Canal issue in the same
light again. Lefties will come away from it marveling at how closely the libertarian Rothbard comes
to echoing the old
that the government is the "executive committee of the capitalist class."
Rothbard’s account of the course of American foreign policy as the history of contention
between the Morgan
the Rockefellers, and the various banking "families," who dealt primarily in buying and
selling government bonds, is fascinating stuff, and it illuminates a theme common to both left and
right commentators: that the elites are manipulating the policy levers to ensure their own economic
interests unto eternity.
In normal times, political movements are centered around elaborate ideologies, complex narratives
that purport to explain what is wrong and how to fix it. They have their heroes, and their villains,
their creation myths and their dystopian visions of a dark future in store if we don’t heed their
call to revolution (or restoration, depending on whether they’re hailing from the "left" or the
You may have noticed, however, that these are not normal times: we’re in a crisis of epic proportions,
not only an economic crisis but also a cultural meltdown in which oursocial institutions
and with them longstanding social norms. In such times, ideological categories tend to
break down, and we’ve seen this especially in the foreign policy realm, where both the "extreme"
right and the "extreme" left are
calling for what the elites deride as "isolationism."
On the domestic front, too, the "right" and "left" views of what’s wrong with the country are remarkably
alike, as demonstrated above. Conservatives and lefties may have different solutions, but
they have, I would argue, a common enemy: the banksters.
This characterization of the banking industry as the moral equivalent of gangsters has
proponents on both sides of the political spectrum, and today that ideological convergence is
all but complete, with only "centrists" and self-described pragmatists dissenting. What rightists
and leftists have in common, in short, is a very powerful enemy – and that’s all a mass political
movement needs to get going.
In normal times, this wouldn’t be enough: but, as I said above, these most assuredly aren’t normal
times. The crisis lends urgency to a process that has been developing – unfolding, if you will –
for quite some time, and that is the evolution of a political movement that openly disdains the
"left" and "right" labels, and homes in on the main danger to liberty and peace on earth: the state-privileged
banking system that is now foreclosing on America.
This issue is not an abstraction: we see it being played out on the battlefield of the debt ceiling
debate. Because, after all, who will lose and who will win if the debt ceiling isn’t raised? The
losers will be the bankers who buy and sell government bonds, i.e. those who finance the War Machine
that is today devastating
much of the world. My leftie friends might protest that these bonds also finance Social Security
payments, and I would answer that they need to grow a spine: President Obama’s
threat that Social Security checks may not go out after the August deadline is, like everything
out that comes out of his mouth,
a lie. The government has the money to pay on those checks: this is just his way of playing
havoc with the lives of American citizens, a less violent but nonetheless just as evil version of
the havoc he plays with the lives of
Libyans every day.
This isn’t about Social Security checks: it’s about an attempt to reinflate the bubble of American
empire, which has been sagging
of late, and keep the government printing presses rolling. For the US government, unlike a private
entity, can print its way out of debt – or, these days, by simply
a few zeroes to the figures on a computer screen. A central bank, owned by "private" individuals,
controls this process: it is called the Federal Reserve. And the Fed has been the instrument of
the banksters from its very inception
[.pdf], at the turn of the 19th century – not coincidentally, roughly the time America embarked
on its course of overseas empire.
There is a price to be paid, however, for this orgy of money-printing: the degradation, or cheapening,
of the dollar. Most of us suffer on account of this policy: the only beneficiaries are those who
receive those dollars first, before it trickles down to the rest of us. The very first to receive
them are, of course, the bankers, but there’s another class of business types who benefit, and those
are the exporters, whose products are suddenly competitive with cheaper foreign goods. This has
been a major driving force behind US foreign policy, as Rothbard points out:
"The great turning point of American foreign policy came in the early 1890s, during the
second Cleveland Administration. It was then that the U.S. turned sharply and permanently from
a foreign policy of peace and non-intervention to an aggressive program of economic and political
expansion abroad. At the heart of the new policy were America’s leading bankers, eager to use
the country’s growing economic strength to subsidize and force-feed export markets and investment
outlets that they would finance, as well as to guarantee Third World government bonds. The major
focus of aggressive expansion in the 1890s was Latin America, and the principal Enemy to be
dislodged was Great Britain, which had dominated foreign investments in that vast region.
"In a notable series of articles in 1894, Bankers’ Magazine set the agenda for
the remainder of the decade. Its conclusion: if ‘we could wrest the South American markets from
Germany and England and permanently hold them, this would be indeed a conquest worth perhaps
a heavy sacrifice.’
"Long-time Morgan associate Richard Olney heeded the call, as Secretary of State from
1895 to 1897, setting the U.S. on the road to Empire. After leaving the State Department, he
publicly summarized the policy he had pursued. The old isolationism heralded by George Washington’s
Farewell Address is over, he thundered. The time has now arrived, Olney declared, when ‘it behooves
us to accept the commanding position… among the Power of the earth.’ And, ‘the present crying
need of our commercial interests,’ he added, ‘is more markets and larger markets’ for American
products, especially in Latin America.’"
The face of the Enemy has long since changed, and Britain is our partner in a vast mercantilist
enterprise, but the mechanics and motivation behind US foreign policy remain very much the same.
You’ll note that the Libyan "rebels," for example, set up a Central Bank
right off the bat, even before ensuring their military victory over Gadhafi – and who do you
think is going to be selling (and buying) those Libyan "government" bonds? It sure as heck won’t
be Joe Sixpack: it’s the same Wall Streeters who issued an ultimatum to the Tea Party, via Moody’s,
that they’ll either vote to raise the debt ceiling or face the consequences.
But what are those consequences – and who will feel their impact the most?
It’s the bankers who will take the biggest hit if US bonds are downgraded: the investment bankers,
who invested in such a dodgy enterprise as the US government, whose "full faith and credit" isn’t
worth the paper it’s printed on. In a free market, these losers would pay the full price of their
bad business decisions – in our crony-capitalist system, however, they win.
They win because they have the US government behind them — and because their strategy of degrading
the dollar will reap mega-profits from American exporters, whose overseas operations they are funding.
The "China market," and the rest of the vast undeveloped stretches of the earth that have yet to
develop a taste for iPads and Lady Gaga, all this and more will be open to them as long as the dollar
continues to fall.
That this will cripple the buying power of the average American, and raise the specter of
hyper-inflation, matters not one whit
of difference to the corporate and political elites that control our destiny: for with the realization
World Central Bank, in which a new global currency controlled by them can be printed to suit
their needs, they will be set free from all earthly constraints, or so they believe.
With America as the world policeman and the world banker – in alliance with our European
satellites – the Washington elite can extend their rule over the entire earth. It’s true we won’t
have much to show for it, here in America: with the dollar destroyed, we’ll lose our economic primacy,
and be subsumed into what George Herbert Walker Bush called the "New
World Order." Burdened with defending the corporate profits of the big banks and exporters abroad,
and also with bailing them out on the home front when their self-created bubbles burst, the American
people will see a dramatic drop in their standard of living – our sacrifice to the gods of "internationalism."
That’s what they mean when they praise the new "globalized" economy.
Yet the American people don’t want to be sacrificed, either to corporate gods or some desiccated
idol of internationalism, and they are getting increasingly angry – and increasing savvy when it
comes to identifying the source of their troubles.
This brings us to the prospects for a left-right alliance, both short term and in the long run.
In the immediate future, the US budget crisis could be considerably alleviated if we would simply
end the wars started by George W. Bush and
vigorously pursued by his successor. Aside from that, how many troops do we still have in Europe
– more than half a century after World War II? How many in Korea – long after the Korean war? Getting
rid of all this would no doubt provide enough savings to ensure that those Social Security checks
go out – but that’s a bargain Obama will never make.
All those dollars, shipped overseas, enrich the
complex and their friends, the exporters – and drain the very life blood out of the rest of
us. Opposition to this policy ought to be the basis of a
left-right alliance, a movement to bring
America home and put America first.
In the long term, there is the basis for a more comprehensive alliance: the de-privileging of
the banking sector, which cemented its rule with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. That,
however, is a topic too complex to be adequately covered in a single column, and so I’ll just leave
open the intriguing possibility.
"Left" and "right" mean nothing in the current context: the real division is between government-privileged
plutocrats and the rest of us. What you have to ask yourself is this: which side are you on?
On occasion, truth is stranger than fiction; and in the somewhat surreal world in which
we now inhabit,
The Onion's perfect parody of where we are headed could have been lifted from any mainstream
media front-page with little questioning from the majority of Americans. For your reading pleasure,
the 62-year-old with a gun that is the last man standing between the American people and
full-scale totalitarian government takeover.
Define irony? Here is one, or rather two, tries. Back in the 1970s, it was none
other than the US that armed the Taliban "freedom fighters" fighting against the USSR in the Soviet-Afghanistan
war, only to see these same freedom fighters eventually and furiously turn against the same US that
provided them with arms and money, with what ended up being very catastrophic consequences, culminating
with September 11. Fast forward some 30 years and it is again the US which, under the guise of dreams
and hopes of democracy and the end of a "dictatorial reign of terror", armed local insurgents in
the Libyan war of "liberation" to overthrow the existing regime (and in the process liberate just
a bit of Libya's oil) - the same Libya where shortly thereafter these same insurgents rose against
their former sponsor, and killed the US ambassador in what has now become an epic foreign policy
Snafu. But it doesn't end there as according to Russia, it is the same US weapons that were
provided to these Libyan "freedom fighters" that are now being used in what is rapidly becoming
a war in Mali, involving not only assorted French regiments, but extensive US flip flops
and boots on the ground. "This will be a time bomb for decades ahead."
Here are indications of the lingering costs of 11 years of warfare. Nearly 130,000 U.S. troops
have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and vastly more have experienced brain
injuries. Over 1,700 have undergone life-changing limb amputations. Over 50,000 have been wounded
in action. As of Wednesday, 6,656 U.S. troops and Defense Department civilians have died.
That updated data
(.pdf) comes from a new Congressional Research Service report into military casualty statistics
that can sometimes be difficult to find — and even more difficult for American society to fully
appreciate. It almost certainly understates the extent of the costs of war.
Start with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. Counting since 2001 across the U.S. military
services, 129,731 U.S. troops have been diagnosed with the disorder since 2001. The vast majority
of those, nearly 104,000, have come from deployed personnel.
But that’s the tip of the PTSD iceberg, since not all — and perhaps not even most — PTSD cases
are diagnosed. The former vice chief of staff of the Army, retired Gen. Peter Chiarelli, has proposed
dropping the “D” from PTSD so as not to stigmatize those who suffer from it — and, perhaps,
encourage more veterans to seek diagnosis and treatment for it. (Not
all veterans advocates agree with Chiarelli.)
Senator Hagel, you have
said that no president in 20 years – since George H. W. Bush – has fully exercised his powers
over the military in his role as commander in chief. Why is that? How can civilian commanders
reassert their constitutional authority over the uniformed military?
You call yourself an Eisenhower Republican. Ike famously warned Americans about the political
and economic costs of “the military-industrial complex.” Do you see that threat today? If so, how
do you define it? Is there a single major weapons system in the American arsenal that you would
eliminate on the basis of its cost and effectiveness?
Can you rein in the generals and their spending? Is the future to be feared or seized in Afghanistan
President Obama has said: “War is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression
of human folly.” By that standard, how do you judge the American military experience in Iraq and
Afghanistan over the past decade?
Military Industrial Complex"In the councils of government, we must guard against
the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military- industrial complex."President Dwight D. Eisenhower Farewell Address, January 17, 1961
"A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money.", U.S. Senator
With Dick Cheney as vice-president it looks like Peter Huber is too quick to dismiss Eisenhower
warning. Corporations that sell mainly to government are a powerful factor that have to turn any state
into oligarchic state.
It is civilian demand for PCs, cell phones, high-tech cars and smart appliances that has made
precision bomb components as cheap and disposable as bullets.
The U.S. armaments industry today looks more the way it did when Dwight Eisenhower entered West
Point in 1911 than it did 50 years later, when, in a farewell speech, he famously warned Americans
to beware the "military-industrial complex."
Until World War II, Eisenhower reflected, the U.S. had no real weapons industry--"American makers
of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well." By 1961, however, the U.S.
had formed "a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions," overseen by a huge work force "directly
engaged in the defense establishment." This development implicated "our toil, resources and livelihood."
At stake was "the very structure of our society."
Both halves of Eisenhower's dark vision are now rapidly fading into history. It
takes far fewer people to fight and direct wars today than it did even a decade ago. That's because
the speed and power of the front-line soldier have been so greatly amplified by smart weapons and
smart delivery systems, and because accurate information now moves so easily up the chain of command.
Our distant wars are now fought, once again, by the few, the band of brothers, while most of the
rest of us lie abed, watching their progress on CNN.
The center of gravity of defense manufacturing has shifted decisively back into the civilian
sector, as well. Large contractors still assemble the guidance system and explosive in a
smart bomb and the complex mix of steel and silicon that makes up a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.
But the components that account for much of the cost and all of the astounding precision and
agility of the new weapons--powerful chips, together with the countless layers of software that
make them function--are manufactured by the same companies that build microprocessors for PCs and
amplifiers for cell phones. It is the huge civilian demand for PCs, digital assistants,
cell phones, high-tech cars and smart appliances that has made these components as cheap and disposable
This isn't to say that the technology moves only in one direction. Integrated circuits emerged
from aerospace programs in the 1960s; gallium arsenide semiconductor amplifiers that make possible
the compact, cheap cell phone were pioneered by TRW for defense purposes a decade ago. The indium
phosphide, gallium nitride and silicon carbide power chips that will land in consumer electronics
a decade hence are being developed today in R&D programs funded by the military.
As a part-time partner in a small venture capital firm, I have visited dozens of innovative startups
that have developed new semiconductors, lasers, sensors and power-control systems under Department
of Defense auspices and are now ready to begin moving their products into civilian markets. These
technologies invariably started out too difficult, esoteric and expensive to be of interest to anyone
but the military. The military couldn't afford them, either, but for the fact that successful
information and power technologies invariably make the transition into the civilian sector, where
mass production leads down the cost curve.
For volume production the military and its main contractors are now firmly committed to buying
parts off the commercial shelf whenever they can. Smart weapons are mostly built from civilian components,
suitably packaged and hardened for the battlefield.
Thus the military-industrial complex now consists of two relatively thin bookends to our enormous,
civilian, high-tech economy.
Military R&D programs push the leading-edge development of power semiconductors, software
and sensors, a decade or so out ahead of Intel, Motorola or DaimlerChrysler, then encourage
the migration of successful technologies out into the civilian sector as quickly as possible.
Military contractors end up buying back the same technology at mass-production prices, embedding
it in every vehicle, weapon and projectile on the battlefield.
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry," Eisenhower warned in 1961, "can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals,
so that security and liberty may prosper together."
That was perhaps true in 1961. Today, however, it is our liberty, our routine, peaceful purchases
and pursuits that support the huge industrial base on which the arms manufacturers completely depend.
Unconsciously, and without ever setting out to do so, our civilian sector gave our soldiers the
tools they needed to bring this war to its mercifully quick conclusion.
Peter Huber, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow, is the author of Hard Green: Saving
the Environment From the Environmentalists and the Digital Power Report. Find past columns
Cable news giant Fox News Channel said today that a possible war with Iran would cost only a "minimal"
change in on-air graphics, but warned against the much steeper costs of creating graphics for a
fight with North Korea.
Dirk Slauson, a spokesman for Fox, said that many of the existing graphics
used for "Showdown: Iraq" could be easily and inexpensively retooled for a potential "Showdown:
"In many cases, all that's needed is changing one letter," Mr. Slauson said.
Many images from Operation Iraqi Freedom could also be used for Operation Iranian Freedom, Mr.
Slauson said, since both Iraq and Iran are "extremely sandy places."
And President Bush's speeches warning about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq could be easily
re-dubbed to insert the word "Iran," Mr. Slauson added, saving the network untold millions in sound
trucks, microphones and cameras.
While extremely upbeat on the possible cost savings of a potential war with Iran, the Fox spokesman
was far less sanguine about the U.S. entering into an armed conflict with North Korea.
"With North Korea, you're talking about building graphics from scratch, basically, which costs
a fortune," Mr. Slauson said. "That's the nightmare scenario.""
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on
this site is distributed without profit exclusivly for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting hosting
of this site with different providers to distribute and speed up access. Currently there are
two functional mirrors: softpanorama.info (the fastest) and softpanorama.net.
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers,
SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.