Posts Tagged ‘Military Industrial Complex’

Bigoted Republicans, Deceptive Democrats and the onward march of a police state

January 10, 2012

by Rupen Savoulian, January 8, 2012

Editors Comment: In this rather exhaustive article, Rupen Savoulian has shown in a remarkably clear-sighted way how the American two-party system functions in practice and what sort of policies the two parties follow domestically and in foreign affairs. With the sort of power yielded by  special interest groups, especially the military-industrial complex, the candidates of the two parties vying to reach the  White House devise their strategies  and manipulations tailored to meet the  powerful backers.  The author has   a   clear perception of  how such political gimmicks translate into practice in forming policies of the  Savage Empire in these times. In discussing  the Bush-Cheney regime and the present  administration of Obama, he provides a general political context before dealing with the specifics of the topic under discussion.

What  emerges from Rupen Savoulian’s article is a clear picture of the deceptive nature of Obama’s polices in contrast to his initial false promises that played fraud upon  ordinary citizens. But this was nothing  of a hat-trick but rather  a systemic prerequisite  in the inherent power politics of the  United States.  Therefore, when Obama used anti-war feelings of the people against the Bush-Cheney’s wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was  simply adhering to the common practice of  deception that  defines the American political system. Once in power, he not only carried on the polices of his predecessor, but also extended the imperial wars of aggression. In reality, this oily-tongued demagogue has been more cunning a  president than Bush!

The author  has presented his views in a candid and clear fashion. He has shown how the US imperialism under Bush and now under Obama has been instrumental in keeping the people of the Middle East in bondage to the U.S. imperial interests by supporting dictators, kings and despots. I view this article as an important contribution to  exposing the role of  American war-mongering power elite and  the weapon producers. US imperialism’s global power and its  Savage Empire exists on two wings: military power  and  false propaganda.  An honest observer of American imperialism  cannot combat the U.S. military power; but he or she  has the moral power to  expose the  false  propaganda and  global deception played by the imperialists. This, the author does so well; his exposure of  the  militarists and war criminals in this article  is splendid.

                                                                                        –Nasir Khan, Editor

——————————–

Bigoted Republicans, Deceptive Democrats and the onward march of a police state

by Rupen Souvilian, Antipodean Atheist, January 8, 2012

It is easy to attack the US Republicans, because they openly express their bigotry, hatred and their woeful incompetence is plain for all to see.  One of the previous frontrunners for the Republican party nomination, Herman Cain, demonstrated his terrible ineptness when attempting to answer a simple question about US policy towards Libya, an important issue given the Libyan uprising and subsequent NATO intervention in 2011. Add to that the expression of racist ignorance by Newt Gingrinch who contemptuously called the Palestinians an ‘invented people’, the ‘brain freeze’ of Rick Perry, and the homophobic rantings of Rick Santorum, and it is easy to see that the US Republicans are a pack of floundering buffoons. Sherry Wolf, socialist activist, public speaker and associate editor of the International Socialist Review, said it best when she wrote that this parade of ultra-reactionary Republican dinosaurs proves that in US politics “you could walk into any bar in Brooklyn and find 7 drunks more qualified to run the country.”

It is obvious to any political observer that the US Republicans will cut social expenditure, cut back education, health care and public transportation, all the while increasing funding for the US military-industrial complex. The current speaker of the US House of Representatives, John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, is in the pocket of the large tobacco companies, maintains close relations with big tobacco company executives, and has fought for the interests of the tobacco companies in Washington. In other words, the Republicans are backed by very wealthy supporters, and will use their money and connections to roll back any gains made by working people.

Obama and his supporters will highlight the ignorant, reactionary ravings of his opponents to garner support for his reelection campaign. The Obama Democrats will emphasize any difference, however minuscule, to co-opt the electorate and win a second term in office. What is harder to recognise is the role of the US Democrats, particularly under Barack Obama, in continuing the Bush-Cheney policies, whether it be on the issue of civil liberties, challenging the untrammeled greed and pervasive financial corruption of Wall Street, or on the big questions of US wars overseas.

Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony

Back in 1982, Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder released a single called ‘Ebony and Ivory.’ It was a corny, superficial song, ostensibly meant to demonstrate that people of different skin colour can and should work together. Noble sentiments, even if it was expressed in a simplistic, juvenile touching sort of way. The lyrics speak of how people of all colours can all live and work together. Subsequent history has proven them to be correct – but not in the way the songwriters intended. The vicious, snarling ‘ivory’ of the Bush-Cheney cabal has been replaced by the smiling, touchy-feely ‘ebony’ Obama. The faces have changed, but the underlying course remains the same.

The Bush-Cheney regime was widely despised by the US working class (and governments overseas) as an administration ruling in the interests of the financial-industrial oligarchy. Its propaganda was exposed as war-mongering, and geared towards provoking confrontations with recalcitrant regimes in developing countries, intended to start expansionist wars and advance US imperial objectives. Growing opposition to these imperialist wars, and the steady erosion of civil liberties and democratic safeguards, prompted a change of tactics by the governing military-industrial-financial complex. Obama dutifully exploited the growing antiwar sentiment, and general revulsion against a narrow cabal that ruled to promote the interests of a super-rich elite to get elected. He made many promises to end wars, stop the indefinite detentions and renditions of suspects, and generally promote socially progressive economic policies domestically.

Now we can see that Obama posed as an antiwar candidate only to coopt the antiwar movement, and he quickly exposed his true colours soon after taking office. The election of Obama was a tactical shift by the US ruling class from open warfare to more covert forms of intervention, including Predator drone strikes, escalating anti-terrorism laws to lock up an ever increasing number of suspects, cracking down on insurgencies by using private security contractors (ie mercenaries), redesigning the Iraqi and Afghani occupations to make them less conspicuous but no less intrusive, and making cosmetic changes to the US economy while promoting the interests of the Wall Street elite. Not only has Obama started more imperialist wars overseas, he has nullified the Nuremberg laws by promoting the doctrine of ‘pre-emptive war’, a doctrine that was considered a war crime at the end of World War Two. He has refined the Bush-era doctrine of ‘regime change’, and he has promoted/coopted internal opposition groups to instigate covert regime change in the targeted countries. When that tactic fails, Obama has employed direct and lethal force.

Attack on civil liberties

Obama, the ‘yes we can’ president, promised a wave of changes after the Bush-Cheney regime was exposed as a corrupt, malignant, war-mongering administration.  Yet, since taking office after the 2008 elections, Obama has escalated the Bush-era attacks on civil liberties. The recently passed National Defence Authorisation Act, signed into law by President Obama in December 2011, contains clauses  1031 and 1032 that empower the US military to indefinitely detain any person – US citizens or otherwise – any person suspected of terrorism offences, or providing support for terrorist groups. This law repeals the fundamental human right of habeas corpus, and provides more scaffolding for an emerging police state structure in the United States. And this act also provides another $662 billion dollars for the US military to continue its predatory wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere. Obama has failed to close Guantanamo, and has overseen the construction of another Guantanamo-style secret prison in Bagram airbase, Afghanistan. The courageous journalist Anand Gopal investigated the existence of secret prisons, who stated that “there is a vast complex network of prisons across Afghanistan, mostly situated on US military bases.”

When accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2009, Obama repudiated the international law laid down at Nuremberg more than 60 years ago, by advocating preemptive war. The Nuremberg trials, held in the immediate aftermath of World War Two, established the precedent that heads of state who plan and execute aggressive wars of expansion are guilty of war crimes and crime against humanity. Senior government leaders were held accountable for their decisions that cost the lives of millions of people. The international community expressly repudiated ‘preventive’ war in the context of German imperialism’s drive to establish economic and political domination in Europe. The US ruling class, seeking to dominate vast areas of the globe, escalated its drive to achieve economic supremacy in the early 1990s with the breakup of the Soviet Union. Obama, the allegedly ‘liberal’ Democrat President, extended the policy of establishing US economic hegemony by invoking the outlawed policy of ‘preventive war’. In so many words, aggressive and predatory wars are now an official part of US foreign policy, as elaborated by the fictional ‘anti-war’ President Obama.

The assassination of people overseas – euphemistically called ‘targeted killings’ – is an innovation for which Obama deserves full credit. Killings by unmanned Predator drones have been a characteristic feature of Obama’s administration. Rather than capture Osama Bin Laden and put him on trial, thus demonstrating the evidence of his guilt for all the world to see, Obama deemed it more appropriate to kill him. Bin Laden, a nonentity rendered obsolete by the forward-currents of history in the words of Robert Fisk, was sheltered in Pakistan, a solid US client state. Killing Bin Laden ensured that whatever secrets he had, died with him. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni cleric was assassinated on Obama’s orders back in September 2011. His status as a US citizen, and all the constitutional protections afforded by that status, did not matter to the Obama administration.

Targeted killings were authorised by the Obama administration in February 2010 by then director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis C Blair (retired). Obama knew that Blair had ties to the Indonesian military, a force guilty of serious human rights abuses including mass murder, rape and torture during Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor. In 1999, as the Indonesian forces went on a murderous rampage killing thousands of East Timorese, Blair as commander-in-chief of US forces in the Pacific, was ordered to convey to Indonesian general Wiranto to close down the pro-Indonesian militias. Blair meet with Wiranto, but offered further US military assistance to Indonesia. Wiranto continued to direct the militias that were murdering thousands of East Timorese.

The executive branch of government is now judge, jury and executioner. Awlaki was never convicted, or even charged, with any crime. He was accused by the corporate press as a hate-mongering preacher, and that seemed to be enough to condemn him.  Well, the US is renowned for producing hateful preachers – Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, John Hagee – but they are Christian hate-mongers so that is okay.

Yemen, Saudi Arabia and undermining democracy

The killing of Awlaki occurred in Yemen, soon after the return from temporary exile of the Yemeni dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Yemen has been convulsed by a courageous, continuing uprising that began in January 2011. The dictator Saleh has been a solid ally of the United States since he took power in 1978. The anti-regime protests, like similar uprisings throughout the Arab world, have shaken the regime, and the US is seeking a way to engineer an outcome that protects its interests while mollifying the protesters with some concessions. While Saleh has safeguarded US interests in Yemen, and has cooperated wholeheartedly with that other US client regime Saudi Arabia, the US intends that any post-Saleh regime will not harm US interests. The Obama administration has worked to moderate the demands of the protesters, encouraging the Yemeni regime to make cosmetic changes while preserving the main repressive state and economic apparatus intact. Obama is no friend of democracy and human rights in the Middle East, and as if to underscore the point, Obama approved a multi-billion dollar arms deal with the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Rather than encourage democratisation and support the brave people who have risen up in the Middle East, Obama has sought to maintain the repressive status quo, make certain limited concessions, and direct any political change towards a social outcome friendly to US interests.

We saw the same realpolitik calculations applied by the United States in the case of the Libyan uprising. Qadhafi’s regime had started as a pan-Arab, semi-socialist project that considerably developed the country’s infrastructure and improved the education and health care of the population. In the 1970s and 1980s Qadhafi provided an Arab Nasserist model of development. From the early 1990s, he began a Sadat-style reversal, opening up the country to pockets of private investment. By the early 2000s, he joined the US ‘war on terror’ and his regime had deteriorated into a Western-friendly dictatorship with ties to big European capital. The uprising that began in early 2011 resembled the similar protests in Tunisia and Egypt. Qadhafi waged a brutal counterinsurgency war to stamp out the rebels. Initially, the US was tepid in its response to the uprising – it was essentially playing a waiting game to see if Qadhafi, whose weapons had been supplied by the West, could defeat the insurgents. After all, the Western powers’ intelligence agencies were cooperating with the Qadhafi regime, the latter a useful ally in the ‘war on terror’.

However, once it became clear that the Qadhafi loyalists could not comprehensively defeat the rebels, the Obama administration moved swiftly to support setting up a ‘no-fly zone’, on the excuse that it was motivated by humanitarian considerations in preventing a genocide of Libyan people. Qadhafi’s counterinsurgency was brutal and savage – no less brutal and savage than the countless counterinsurgency wars launched by the US and its proxies in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries where the US has supported dictatorial regimes in suppressing popular uprisings. NATO intervention in that conflict has meant that any post-Qadhafi regime will be beholden to the interests and needs of big European and American capital. Tariq Ali described it as ‘selective vigilantism’, bombing Libya to install a pro-Western Transitional National Council, while shoring up the despots in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen. As the Socialist Worker magazine explained, the ‘noble aims’ of the West, ‘preventing massacres’ in Libya, is always exposed as a fraud by the greater crimes and atrocities of the imperial powers and their proxies, such as the NATO siege and obliteration of the town of Sirte, and the ethnic-cleansing of black African townships by the rebel forces which amount to crimes against humanity. Just to be clear about the real victors in Libya, the New York Times documented that while profit-making opportunities have receded in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have opened up exponentially in post-Qadhafi Libya.

Fake withdrawal

At the end of 2011, Obama announced that all American combat troops have left Iraq, thus fulfilling a campaign promise of 2008 to end that conflict. But upon closer inspection, that withdrawal was just as fake as the Bush-era ‘Mission Accomplished” theatrics. Not only is the US leaving behind 50 000 residual troops in the country, the largest US embassy in the world happens to be in Baghdad. Hundreds of thousands of private security contractors, ie. mercenaries, will continue to carry out counter-insurgency operations. Remaining American forces in Iraq will be rebranded as ‘advisors’ and ‘trainers’, obscuring their role as an occupying force. Obama exerted tremendous pressure on his proxy in Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to provide legal immunity for all US troops in Iraq. Maliki and the Iraqi government did not provide such a blanket exemption, because that measure would have meant political suicide for the fragile coalition headed by Maliki. With the Iraqis refusing to grant blanket immunity from prosecution, the US had no choice but to stage a withdrawal for public consumption and hide the scale of the US debacle in that country.

Sectarian violence has been incited by the Bush and Obama administrations, in order to divide and rule. 40 000 thousand American troops are stationed at bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, supported by the US air force and navy aircraft carriers – all in close proximity to Iraq. As Michael Schwartz, professor of sociology at the State University of New York Stony Brook, has commented, Obama has reduced the ambitious scope to transform Iraq into an aggressive ally of Israel (an objective inherited from the Bush-Cheney days), but he has redesigned the Iraqi occupation to make it less conspicuous and placate his critics, and pursue the vast oil and natural gas reserves in the country. The US occupation has destroyed a functioning society, ruined the health care, electricity, medical and educational services, and left sectarian enclaves under the control of a US-controlled dictatorship in Baghdad.

Embracing Wall Street

Obama has been accused by his Democrat supporters, like veteran journalist Robert Scheer, of abandoning his electoral base by failing to tackle the predatory criminality of the Wall Street financial elite. However, Obama has consistently advocated the cause of the Wall Street bankers and financial speculators whose corrupt practices led to the global financial crash of 2008. He has done nothing to bring those responsible for that financial ruin to account, and instead has opted to shift the cost of that crisis onto working people. While it is obvious that the US Republicans oppose regulations for the financial sector and intend on continuing the policies of reckless financial speculation, Obama packed his cabinet with Wall Street representatives and economists with strong connections to the Wall Street bankers. Back in 2008, Obama (with agreement from Republican John McCain) gave the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson the authority to supply $700 billion from federal funds in order to bail out the big banks, buying up the worthless mortgage-supported securities thus acquiring the debts accumulated by the private sector. In other words, the private sector can rack up an enormous debt, but the public will be required to foot the bill. In 2008, Obama appointed Mary Schapiro to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Schapiro is a long-term Wall Street insider, and a solid representative of the big investment banks and financial institutions. This demonstrates that Obama is a servant of the financial plutocracy, and is not going to confront the people responsible for the financial crisis.

In September 2010, Obama made it perfectly clear that his government was no enemy of big business. In a speech entitled ‘Investing in America’ given to a CNBC-organised event broadcast by that channel from Washington, Obama dropped all the rhetoric against ‘fat cats’ and openly praised the ‘free market’ as the answer to the country’s economic problems. He talked about ‘partnering with Wall Street’ to revive the economy, and declared that “”In every speech, every interview that I have made, I’ve constantly said what sets America apart, what has made us successful over long term, is we’ve got the most dynamic free-market economy in the world.” A clear statement of an entrepreneur’s fantasy-philosophy.

It is time to occupy wall street, and remove the pretense that the US Democrats represent some kind of labour-friendly alternative. The Occupy movement, having spread to Australia, focuses on the malignant influence of the corporate hierarchy in subverting political democracy. The defence of jobs, health care, education, social services and our democratic rights needs to focus on the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny financial oligarchy. Socialists, activists, and all those concerned about the growing criminality of the US ruling class need to merge with and strengthen the Occupy movement, and reject the danger of falling into the trap of tailing the Democrat party.

Glenn Greenwald has stated that Obama is abandoning the basic principles of the Democrat party, leading the charge to cutback social security, health care, continuing to promote Bush-era policies on indefinite detention, torture of rendition suspects, assassinating US citizens (and others) without any regard for due process, and building secret prisons. It is time to bluntly state that  Obama is a mass murderer and war criminal, and belongs in the dock with Bush and Cheney.

Advertisements

The Obama Enigma: Imperial Interventionism and Militarism

June 14, 2009

by Rodrigue Tremblay | June  14, 2009

“We do not want a PAX Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”

President John F. Kennedy, 1963

“I will not hesitate to use force unilaterally, if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests wherever we are attacked or imminently threatened. …

We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense, in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability — to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”

Sen. Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs (July/August 2007)

“Our interest in Afghanistan is to prevent it from becoming a haven for terrorists bent on attacking us. That does not require the scale of military operations that the incoming administration is contemplating. It does not require wholesale occupation. It does not require the endless funneling of human treasure and countless billions of taxpayer dollars to the Afghan government.”

Bob Herbert, The New York Times, January 6, 2009

Those who thought that the election of Barack Obama as American President would mean a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy should have lost their illusions by now. Faces change but the system remains. When you want change, it’s necessary to look beyond a single individual and evaluate the team he is working with …or for. And the Obama team is what can be called a soft neoconservative team, all devoted to maintaining the military-industrial complex, and all sold out with the ideology of permanent wars rather than permanent human progress.

The truth is that during the last election, both candidate McCain and candidate Obama were favorable to the policy of permanent wars under the cover of fighting terrorism. That is the reason I had concluded then that candidate Obama was only marginally superior to candidate McCain, but not fundamentally different. In fact, I believe that as far as character goes, McCain was probably more his own man than Obama, who has demonstrated a tendency to align himself with powerful interests in order to bolster his political career.

Continued >>

Obama’s new wars

May 4, 2009

Rev. Richard Skaff | Global Research, May 2, 2009

It is essential to know history in order to understand the present. Nevertheless, knowing history has never precluded man from repeating it.

Historically, Every American president had his war. However, in the 60’s a change of policy or doctrine occurred during the Kennedy administration. The change was geared toward the deterrence of wars of national liberations, which in turn led to the McNamara revolution and to the creation of new mobile forces that will stealthily move smoothly and swiftly across the planet in the next 50 years establishing an invisible empire.

The following excerpts will clarify some of this history and will edify the reasons behind the conflicts we embarked on in the last 50 years.

Brief history:

Throughout the cold war era, American defense analysts believed implicitly in the proposition that military superiority was defined in terms of firepower, mobility, and other technological factors. Military doctrine is not formulated on the basis of abstract principles or unchanging laws. The armed forces of a nation are nothing more nor less than an instrument of national policy-an instrument that is, of those with the power to make that policy. In the United States, the making of foreign policy has been, for all practical purposes, the exclusive prerogative of the business elite that has dominated the Executive departments since the late nineteenth century. [5].

Of course, one cannot say that this elite constitutes a monolithic bloc with a unified policy orientation. Differences of outlook, competing short-and long-term interests, and conflicting power foci have always existed. But in the most general sense, the business community dominates the American foreign policy apparatus has shared a common interest in the continued growth of capitalism, the Open Door in world trade, and the expansion of our “invisible empire.” [6].

For over a century, the employment of U.S. forces abroad has been governed by the principle of business expansionism; again and again.  American troops have been sent to the Third World to guarantee our access to key markets and sources of raw materials, and to protect American properties from expropriation.

This pattern of military intervention is graphically documented in a chronology of the “instances of use of U.S. Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1945,” prepared at the request of the late Senator Everett Dirksen and published in the Congressional record. Of the nearly 160 occasions on which American forces were employed abroad between 1798-1945, an overwhelming majority involved occupation of a Third World country.

Between 1900 and 1925, for instance, U.S. troops were dispatched overseas “to protect American interests” or “ to restore order” during “periods of revolutionary activities” in China (seven times), Colombia (three times), Cuba (Three times), The Dominican Republic (four times), Guatemala (twice), Haiti (twice), Honduras (seven times), Korea (twice), Mexico (three times), Morocco, Nicaragua (twice), Panama (six times), the Philippines, Syria and Turkey (twice). Of the longer interventions, American soldiers occupied Haiti from 1925 to 1934 “to maintain order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection,” and Cuba from 1917 to 1933 “to protect American interests during an insurrection and subsequent unsettled conditions.” [1].

Following World War II, American military strategy was reshaped by the nation’s cold war leadership to accord the principal foreign policy goals of the era: The stabilization of Western European capitalism and the prevention of further Soviet advances in Europe and Asia .

The officers who assumed leadership of the military apparatus at this time had all risen to prominence during World War, and they naturally turned to their wartime experience for guidance in the formulation of combat doctrine. The strategies they adopted and the weapons they acquired were appropriate to what they perceived as the greatest threat to American national interests-a Third World War in Europe precipitated by an invasion by the Soviet Red Army.

By the late 1950’s, it had become apparent to some American strategists that the maintenance of nuclear supremacy secured at the expense of other military programs-had left us vulnerable to attacks by armed revolutionaries. The stability of our invisible empire in the Third World was shaken by the unexpected rebel successes at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, in Cuba in 1959, and in Algeria in 1962. These events, coming at a time when trade and investment in the Third World were becoming increasingly critical to metropolitan economy, forced a complete reevaluation of American military strategy.

If our invisible empire were to be preserved and American expansion in the Third World facilitated, it would be necessary to develop new strategies and techniques for defeat of guerilla armies in underdeveloped areas. U.S. troops would once again be sent abroad to “protect American interests” and to “restore order” during periods of chronic and threatened insurrection. Therefore, the American business elite will have us fight so persistently to suppress revolutions because they view this struggle as the only way to maintain their power and privilege. The rewards at stake are far too great. Only through revolution can the people of the Third World begin the process of development and acquire some measure of self-dignity; only through counterrevolution can the American business elite preserve its wealth and power. For the United States, the only possible outcome of this global conflict is participation in a long series of “limited” conflicts, police actions, and “stability operation”-the war without end.

US interest in limited war strategy first emerged in response to the Korean War which was largely fought with World War II weapons despite an overwhelming American superiority in nuclear armaments. The opponents of the Massive retaliation called the “strategic revisionist” who rejected the Eisenhower-Dulles thesis felt that the U.S. would spend itself into bankruptcy if it prepared to fight local aggression locally at places and with weapons of the enemy’s choosing. General Maxwell D. Taylor a former army chief of staff was one of these revisionists who proposed the strategy of “flexible response” capability that would enable the U.S. to respond to each crisis with precisely the degree of force required to assure success.

Taylor had the backing of academic strategist associated with the Council on Foreign Relations, Center for International Affairs of Harvard University, and the Center for international studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These views were given further elaboration in the following year when panel II of the special studies Project of the Rockefeller brothers fund delivered its report on “international security: the “Military Aspect.” Prepared under the direction of Henry A. Kissinger (ten years before he was to become President’s Nixon key foreign-policy adviser).

President Kennedy, on the other hand was deeply impressed by these arguments, and in 1961 the advocates of Flexible Response were invited to participate in the new administration. Thus, under Kennedy the policy of Flexible Response became established Pentagon doctrine. Sharing the president’s concern with the threat of revolutionary warfare was the new secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, who later on implements the doctrine and reorganizes the pentagon (described as the McNamara revolution) and endowed himself with the same of kind of management aids that were available to him as president of Ford.  Shortly, after, the blueprint for counterrevolution was created. The blueprint entailed the ability to rapid military deployment, the electronic battlefield, the Mercenary apparatus (developing secret local armies/mercenaries by the CIA), and social systems engineering (project Camelot) designed to determine the feasibility of developing a general social systems model which would make it possible to predict and influence politically significant aspects of social change in the developing nations of the world. [1].

Today’s wars:

As we see the 60’s have set the stage for the future wars or otherwise called low intensity conflicts, or counterrevolution interventions.

  1. This strategy works very well militarily and politically. Presidents began to wage low intensity wars that they can easily win in order to increase their popularity, rally the public behind them, generate jobs in the Military Industrial Complex, and create a frenzy of flag wavers. People love to win wars and to wave flags; besides, the military helps the populace act out vicariously their rage and their anger toward a common enemy instead of focusing on their own empty lives, ineptness, and alienation, and give them instead a pseudo-sense of mightiness and godliness when their military win a conflict regardless how insignificant the opposition might be (i.e. Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Haiti, Afghanistan, etc…).

As a result, we maintain the illusion of a healthy economy that is based on debt, we deify war and warriors, foster vengeance, and create public fervor and zest for power and domination.

Here we are again today, another administration, rhetoric and newspeak and a prospective new war.  However, the same money masters who groomed, recruited, and put Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. in office also put Obama in this same office to do their bidding.

Interestingly, Mr. Obama has endorsed the Patriot Act, the spying on Americans, the terrorist watch list, and the expansion of big brother into new heights. He has also continued the bail outs and rescue of the corrupt and insolvent fractional reserve banking system, since many of these super banks have contributed to his campaign generous amounts of money that went unnoticed by the corrupt global medial outlets. The Obama campaign received by August 2008 huge sums of money, per example, JP Morgan Chase contributed to Obama’s campaign $398,021, Citibank $393,899,  UBS Swiss bank, $378,400, Goldman Sachs $627,730, [4], and the corporate list that Obama vowed not to take money from goes on and on.

Meanwhile, Obama predictably reneged on the rest of his campaign promises. Iraq became the forgotten war, or the new conflict due to the new escalation by alleged insurgents. Obama has kept the troops in Iraq and plans to shuffle and shuttle some of them to Afghanistan in order to start his new central Asian war. At the same time, the bloodshed continues in Babylon (in April 2009, 18 American soldiers died) and the dismantling of every aspect of this country persists.

However, economically speaking, Iraq was part of our economic and Wall Street Ponzi scheme. It was a blessing in disguise for the Bush administration, because it kept the economy tagging along and the unemployment levels under control due to the high contracting and government jobs that were engendered by the Iraq war, while over a million Iraqis have died. “War makes money.”

On April 9, 2009 Reuters reported that President Barack Obama asked the U.S. Congress for an additional $83.4 billion to fund the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan saying the security situation along the Afghan-Pakistan frontier was urgent. [7].

Ironically, the New York Times reported on May 1, 2009 that administration officials have stated that the American confidence in the Pakistani government has waned,  and the Obama administration is reaching out more directly than before to Nawaz Sharif, the chief rival of Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president. What is more odious is that American officials have long held Mr. Sharif at arm’s length because of his close ties to Islamists in Pakistan, but some Obama administration officials now say those ties could be useful in helping Mr. Zardari’s government to confront the stiffening challenge by Taliban insurgents. [6]. In other words, the Obama administration is flirting with the Islamists in Pakistan to support the current president, whom they will eventually assassinate in order to take over the throne of corruption. As a result, the U.S. will have created once again a new monster to slay, an ogre with nuclear weapons in which they have provided and supported with billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Subsequently, Obama will also continue his predecessor’s policies in the region, and in Afghanistan, to protect the oil pipelines, and to resume the encircling of Russia and China under the guise of wanting to destroy the mythical Al Qaeda and its leader the late OBL (who was declared dead by Benazir Bhutto on her interview with David Frost before she was assassinated).

On the local front Obama will be battling the new swine flu, which combines genetic material from pigs, birds and humans in a way researchers have not seen before. However, the medical establishment apparently has already in place a pre-existing blood test that could detect this new and unusual stain of hybrid flu.

Fear must continue to be drummed up into the public’s psyche intermittently to maintain its effectiveness, either with created ogres that are lurking among us, or by a disease that threatens our existence and render us into primitive automatons seeking shelter and gratification in the arms of a father figure embodied in a corrupt elitist government.

What is it going to take for Mexicans to privatize their oil? A new plague?

The remaining question is whether Mr. Obama can remain popular throughout his term without engaging the military in a low intensity conflict?

Unfortunately, in his perch on the morning of 03-27-09 he elucidated his policy against the mythical and contrived war on terror, therefore, continuing the policy of the previous administration and of the money masters. Obama like every other president, chose expediency over truth and justice. He is after all another front man, namely a politician.

References:

1. M. T. Klare, (1972). War without end. American planning for the next Vietnam .  Random House Inc. New York .

  1. 2. Michael C. Conley, “The Military Value of Social Sciences in an Insurgent  Environment,” Army Research and Development Newsmagazine (November 1996).    P. 22.

3. Prolific magazine. August 8, 2008. Meet Obama’s Corporate Backers

4. See Kolko, The roots of American Foreign Policy, Chapter 2, pp.27-47

5. Magdoff, The age of Imperialism. pp. 20-1

6. New York Times (May 1, 2009). In Pakistan , U.S. Courts Leader of Opposition.

7. Reuters (April 9, 2009). Obama asks Congress for extra $83.4 bln for military