Category Archives: War

Cheney, Version 1.0

Posted on by

Long before Richard (The Dick) Cheney wrote A Plan for A New American Century, which called for the use of the United States’ unparalleled military might to ensure even greater economic power, there was another Republican who believed in the manifest destiny of white Christian Americans.  He, too, subverted the U.S. Constitution in order to meddle in the affairs of other nations.  And, like Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Pearl and the other neo-cons, he felt that it was the destiny, indeed the duty, of white Christian Americans to bring civilization to the rest of the world.

That man’s name was President Theodore Roosevelt. 

In reading James Bradley’s book, The Imperial Cruise, one cannot escape the fact that Roosevelt was a racist war criminal of the first order.  In addition, one cannot ignore the parallels with our previous administration and their religious conservative followers. 

Like Cheney/Bush, Roosevelt manufactured wars, questioned the patriotism of those who challenged his policies, annointed thugs to act as his surrogates, and water-boarded those who refused to submit to his will.  And, like Cheney/Bush, Roosevelt’s policies resulted in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers and millions of non-white, non-Christian foreigners.  Moreover, it’s clear that his ill-conceived meddling in foreign affairs led directly to the Spanish-American War, WWII, the Korean War and, likely, the Vietnam War. 

Caring American citizens should be watchful that the past administration’s follies don’t have similar results.

The Ghosts of George W. Bush and Richard (The Dick) Cheney.

Posted on by

On January 20, 2009, you probably thought the Bush/Cheney administration had come to an ignominious end.  You were wrong.  The problems generated by these goons still haunt us.  The war in Iraq may be winding down (although we can’t be certain), but the war in Afghanistan is growing.  The oil companies and Big Pharma are still holding a gun to our collective heads.  The Wall Street tycoons are still gambling with our money and paying themselves six to eight figure bonuses.  The corporations and utilities are still spewing poisons into our atmosphere.  The gun lobby is still rewriting laws to permit more weaponry.  Health insurance companies are still hauling in record profits while denying care to millions. 

Don’t blame Obama.  These issues all began or at least ballooned under Bush/Cheney and it will take years to change them. 

But these issues are the least of our problems.  Seriously!  The most problematic legacy of the Bush years is a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives who liberally support big corporations while denying rights for individuals.

And now that the Roberts Court has over-reached by over-turning 103 years of established law to allow unlimited funding for candidates by large corporations, what Senators or Congressional representatives will dare to vote against corporate interests when those corporations can spend millions, maybe billions, to defeat them in the next election?  What Gubernatorial or Legislative candidate will be able to raise enough money to compete with a corporate-sponsored foe?  The majority opinion of the Court says it ruled to erase limits on free speech.  The effect will be very much the opposite. 

What are we fighting for?

Posted on by

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? 

The Corporatization of America.

Posted on by

Those on the political right incessantly condemn government while, at the same time, promoting “privatization” – another word for corporatization.  What they want is to eliminate all forms of public regulation and turn all of our government affairs over to large corporations. 

They have a good start.

In the U.S., our health care and pharmaceutical industries have long been privately-owned and controlled.  This despite the fact that taxpayers provide large research grants to these companies to help them develop their products.  And over the past 30 years, we’ve seen increased privatization and control of the food chain, schools, prisons, even the military.  The mercenary company, Blackwater (aka Xe), has become a household word for its role in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Indeed, some reports state that there are as many mercenaries working for the U.S. in those wars as there are government troops.  We’ve even seen our government award patents (and the resulting control) to corporations for genetic discoveries, including plant hybrids even though they were often subsidized by our government.  Perhaps the greatest threat of this privatization nonsense is to our water supplies. 

Appearing on Christiane Amanpour’s CNN program, Robert Kennedy, Jr. stated that this is becoming a very big concern throughout the world.  He stated that water is one of the biggest bargaining issues for peace between Israelis and the Arab world.  And, according to Kennedy, the issue we’re seeing in the Middle East is now becoming a very big issue in the western U.S.  For example, as the result of urban and irrigation pressures, the Colorado River now runs dry before it hits the ocean.  Lake Powell, which provides water for Las Vegas, is projected to be dry in 20-50 years.  In addition, much of the prime farmland in California now lacks water for irrigation because of the demand on reservoirs.  Of course, some suggest that the solution is to give control of water supplies to private corporations. 

This is a very bad idea.

This privatization stupidity has gone so far that some want corporations to take over public lands, public parks and public buildings.  In the state of Arizona, the Republican-controlled legislature has already cut millions from education, tourism and public safety in its attempts to balance the budget while simultaneously cutting taxes.  Yet those measures haven’t been sufficient.   So the Republicans are actually promoting legislation that would force the state to sell all state-owned public buildings to individuals or corporations and lease them back.  The result would be to literally hand billions to the buyers at the expense of the taxpayers who paid to build them.

If the choice is between a well-regulated government and greedy corporations (think AIG, Goldman-Sachs, BankofAmerica, et al), which would you want to control your fate? 

How tea-baggers can eliminate the national debt.

Posted on by

Since President Obama’s inauguration, the so-called tea-baggers have demonstrated, yelled at and threatened the administration. They claim the President is not a citizen. They believe he is trying to implement a socialist, or even communist, agenda. And they seem most angry over increases in the national debt. Never mind that the increases are the result of the previous administration’s policies. Never mind that much of the money allocated through TARP funds has been repaid. Never mind that GM seems on the road to recovery. And ignore the fact that, according to the CBO, the stimulus has saved or created 1.6 million jobs.

However, I think we can channel all that anger and energy to help pay off the national debt. Since the tea-baggers have driven up sales of guns and ammo following Obama’s election, they’re certainly well-enough armed to defend our shores. That would permit us to eliminate most of our national defense budget.

Just think, without a large military force, the tea-baggers would no longer have to fear that our government will take away their freedoms. Of course, we could keep a small professional military to operate, maintain and defend our enormous arsenal of nuclear tipped missiles. That would ensure that no foreign government would attack us. We’d bring home our troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Japan and South Korea. Without an enormous military and all of its ships, planes, tanks and troop carriers, we would have less need for oil, so we would no longer need to project American power around the globe. And since most of our large, multi-national corporations have already exported most of our jobs, we should feel no obligation to protect corporate interests on foreign soil. Besides, those companies can afford to hire their own protection such as the likes of Blackwater, aka Xe.

What’s not to like? No more war. No more nation-building (other than on our own soil). No more national debt. All made possible by putting the tea-baggers’ guns and anger to better use.

Who’s really at fault for our nation’s predicament?

Posted on by

Who is more at fault for the problems that face our nation?  Republican candidates?  Or the voters who are deceived into voting for them?  During campaigns, Republican candidates take a populist tone.  They talk about the issues that are important to ordinary Americans such as opportunity and personal freedom.  But when they are elected, they tend to focus almost exclusively on issues designed to benefit the elite. 

Despite promises of fiscal responsibility, Reagan and George W. Bush dramatically increase the deficit and national debt.  Despite promises of small government, Bush created the huge bureaucracy that is Homeland Defense.  And the Republican mantra of lower taxes has really proven to be nonsense.  They may occasionally offer a token tax cut for the middle and lower class, but the real cuts are reserved for the wealthy.   Republicans talk about creating jobs then make it easier for corporations to eliminate collective bargaining and ship jobs oversees.  They talk about getting government regulations out of the way then watch corporations create new scams to abscond with more of their consumers’ money. 

Why, then, do voters fall for these false promises over and over?  Often it’s because they aren’t curious enough to really examine the party’s platform and hold the candidates accountable.  And all too often it’s because they focus on a variety of wedge issues such as abortion, terrorism and same-sex marriage.  They fall victim to a sort of 3 card monte.  They’re mesmorized by the Republican distractions of fear, anger and religion.

How many lower and middle class voters actually benefited from Reaganomics?  How many benefited from George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism?”  I submit that instead of jobs, increased salaries and tax cuts, they were rewarded for their votes with war, massive deficits and decreased prosperity.  But the real Republican constituency consisting of CEOs, bankers, investors, oil executives and defense contractors is doing just fine, thank you.

The return of Dick Vader?

Posted on by

Liz Cheney has stated that she hopes her father will run for President in 2012.  Even allowing for the admiration that a daughter naturally feels toward her father, I have to respond, “Are you out of your @%#^ing mind?! “

This week’s most popular movie at the box office is a disaster epic entitled “2012” which portrays the end of the Earth.  If Dick Cheney were to be elected President, reality could well be more awful than fiction. 

Just imagine, in a Cheney presidency, there would no namby-pamby diplomacy with other nations.  No dithering with our enemies.  Indeed, we’d likely attack every nation that wouldn’t kowtow to Cheney.  We’d treat all Americans as suspected terrorists and spy on their phone calls and emails.  We’d jail our political enemies and hold them for years without trial.  We’d cut taxes on the rich.  We’d virtually eliminate taxes on large corporations.  We’d transfer even more wealth to our overlords.  We’d conduct all government business with no-bid contracts.  We’d privatize our military.  We’d politicize everything.  And we’d centralize all power in the executive branch. 

Wait!   Isn’t that what happened when Cheney was running the country with Bush as a figurehead?

The cost of war.

Posted on by

Our war in Afghanistan has now dragged on longer than the failed Soviet Union occupation.  And President Obama is faced with a decision to expand the war by adding up to 40 thousand new troops, engineering a withdrawal, or committing to something between those extremes. 

By all accounts, this was a war that could have ended several years ago if we hadn’t become preoccupied with Iraq.  But as the Iraq “liberation” dragged on, our real enemies in Afghanistan regrouped and gained in strength.  Now it seems that no option in Afghanistan is a “good” option – especially given our economic woes at home.

It was recently reported that the Afghan war has already cost nearly $230 billion.  It was also estimated that the war costs $500,000 (Pentagon estimate) to $1 million (Congressional estimate) to maintain one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year.  That cost includes transportation, equipment, support facilities and all incidentals.  If those figures are correct, adding 40 thousand more troops to the conflict will cost the U.S. an additional $20-40 billion over the next year.   And given that we still have combat troops stationed in Germany and Japan more than 60 years after the end of WW II, the cost will likely continue for many years to come. 

Not included in that estimate is the cost of VA to treat lasting injuries and psychological damage.  There are also the sums paid to veterans for disabilities.   And, of course, it’s impossible to place a price on the lives lost in action.   

Add to these costs the price of the war in Iraq which some estimate to total more than $2 trillion.

All of this is background to the debate over health care reform and economic stimulus.  The economic stimulus package that was signed by President Obama included $787 billion to create or save jobs by rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.  And the cost of health care reform bills being considered are estimated to  cost more than $800 billion over 10 years.  Of course, the conservatives are horrified by these numbers.

So they must be apoplectic over the cost of Bush’s wars?  Not exactly.   The conservatives can’t wait to send more troops to Afghanistan and spend more money (and more lives) on open-ended, no-bid contracts for the likes of Halliburton and Xe.  They even trotted out the dark one (former V.P., and former Halliburton CEO, Dick Cheney) to attack Obama for “dithering” over the decision to commit more troops. 

Conservative logic goes something like this:  It’s un-American and un-patriotic to spend our own money on our own citizens for jobs and health care.  But it’s absolutely necessary to spend trillions to kill a few knuckleheads on the other side of the globe. 

Does this make any sense?  I think you know the answer.

Let the investigations begin.

Posted on by

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?

Maybe we should reconsider all of our troop deployments.

Posted on by

The current discussion regarding the appropriate level of US troops for Afghanistan got me wondering about the total size of our military.  How many more troops do we have to send?

The most recent information I found shows that we have nearly 1.4 million active duty troops worldwide and another 1.4 million in active reserve.  Those totals include 130 thousand in Iraq and 62 thousand in Afghanistan with at least 68 thousand by year end.

In addition, we have 40 thousand in South Korea, 45 thousand in Japan, plus 5-30 thousand each in Italy, Spain and Turkey and 250 thousand in Germany!  The question is “Why?” 

I understand why we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But why do we still have troops in Japan?  The war has been over for more than 60 years and, although Japan is a threat to us economically, it certainly isn’t a military threat.  So what possible reason can there be to maintain such a large force?  If it’s to act as a counter to China, do we really think 45 thousand troops are a serious deterrent to China’s combined forces of more than 6 million?

You also have to wonder about our troop levels in Germany.  After all, Hitler and the Third Reich were defeated in 1945 and the Cold War has been over for more than 20 years.  

South Korea?  Okay, I understand that one.  The Korean War has never been declared over – we simply signed an armistice that paused the fighting.  And even though that was 56 years ago, the country to the north has nuclear weapons, missiles and a huge standing army. 

Perhaps the most puzzling deployments are the thousands of troops in Italy and Spain.  For what purpose?  Shopping?  Supplying wine to the rest of our troops?  Working on their tans?  Because Don Rumsfeld favored Tuscan cooking? 

The real question is this:  If we have 1.4 million troops, why are so few bearing the brunt of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan?  If my figures are correct, fewer than 15 percent are deployed in those countries.  Yet many of our soldiers are already on their 4th and 5th tours of duty in combat. 

As long as President Obama and the Department of Defense are considering troop levels in Afghanistan, why not look troop levels everywhere?  They could begin by declaring victory in Germany, Italy and Japan, and finally bring those troops home.