What are we fighting for?

I recently watched a documentary about the Civil War.  In discussing the events leading up to the war, the narrator stated, “For the Confederacy, it was dependent upon wealthy plantation owners convincing the poor to fight for them.” 

I could scarcely believe the openness and honesty of that statement! 

But isn’t that almost always the case?  True, many Union soldiers volunteered to join the battle as a fight against slavery.  And, in WWII, most U.S. soldiers joined the battle as retaliation for Pearl Harbor and to stop world domination by the Axis powers.  But most wars wouldn’t have happened if the rich hadn’t been able to manipulate the poor into fighting for them.

Many years ago, I found myself sitting next to the CBS bureau chief for Central and South America.  I told him I was confused about the situation in Nicaragua and El Salvador.  “Who are the good guys?” I asked.  He turned to me and laughed.  “There are no good guys.  Like most Americans, you’re under the false impression that U.S. foreign policy is about right and wrong.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  The U.S. simply supports whoever is friendliest to our corporations,” he said. 

Since that conversation, I’ve examined conflicts with his words in mind.  Almost always, I’ve realized that our soldiers are ordered to fight to preserve corporate interests.  For example, the Afghan War was not only the result of the Taliban providing sanctuary for Al Qaeda.  Bush, Cheney and their oil buddies had long wanted to build a pipeline across that country.  The Iraq War was sold as a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.  But it was likely more about the oil reserves Saddam controlled.  And, according to a professor at Northern Arizona University who studies the origins and results of conflicts, our war in Bosnia was more about demonstrating the continued need for NATO following the fall of the Soviet Union than it was about the so-called genocide. 

Indeed, if the U.S. entered wars only to protect our homeland or American citizens, we likely wouldn’t have participated in the Opium War with China, the Spanish-American War, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Kuwait, Bosnia and Iraq.  Moreover, we wouldn’t need to have our military stationed around the world in Germany, Japan, Okinawa, Bosnia, Turkey, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.

And if we entered wars solely for human rights abuses and the prevention of genocide, we likely would have sent troops to Tibet, Cambodia, Chile, East Timor, Sudan and dozens of other nations. 

So the next time you hear a politician start talking about the need to send our military halfway around the globe to protect “American interests,” ask yourself.  What interests does he or she really want to protect?  Those of our large, greedy corporations?  Or those of our citizenry? 

Let the investigations begin.

It was recently announced that a former member of the Bush cabinet, Gail Norton, is the subject of a corruption probe. As Secretary of State, Ms. Norton awarded some lucrative oil shale leases to a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the company that hired her a few months later.

The focus of the investigation is whether Norton violated a law that prohibits federal employees from discussing employment with a company if they are involved in dealings that could benefit the firm. It’s also possible that she broke the federal “denial of honest services” law, which permits a government official to be prosecuted for violating the public trust.

I have no idea if Ms. Norton is guilty. Her actions certainly give the appearance of guilt. But she’s certainly not the only former member of the Bush administration who appeared guilty of some impropriety. 

How about former EPA chief Stephen Johnson who found ways to avoid regulating greenhouse gases? How about former Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson who authorized billions to former colleagues in financial institutions without restrictions? How about former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who fired US attorneys for what appeared to be political purposes? Or how about John Yoo who found questionable justification to approve torture? Scooter Libby was convicted of outing a covert CIA operative, but what about those above him who likely encouraged him to release the information?

How about Don Rumsfeld who was responsible for awarding “no bid” military contracts to the corporation that was previously headed by former Vice-President Cheney? Finally, how about the former president who usurped power from Congress and seemingly ginned up information to justify an unwarranted invasion of Iraq?

As long as there are reasonable suspicions that these people committed illegal or unethical actions, there is a great likelihood that this kind of unethical behavior will continue.

And why limit the investigations to former government officials? The Bush administration was especially egregious. But the problems with our government go much deeper.

While we’re at it, let’s investigate the links between all elected officials and lobbyists. After all, when a political candidate receives tens of thousands of dollars from an industry, corporation, lobbyist or individual expecting special access or treatment, is that not as unethical as what Gail Norton is accused of?