Category Archives: War

The Perpetual War Machine.

Posted on by

As President Eisenhower was leaving office, he warned, “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 … 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.”

Consider the warning unheeded.

For 2010, the U.S. defense budget is $692,000,000,000 – more than the total of all 194 other nation’s combined. And that doesn’t even include the money being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan! By comparison, in 2009, the 2nd largest defense budget belonged to China at $98,800,000. And the defense budget for Russian Federation stood at a paltry $61,000,000.

Yet, as our nation struggles with high unemployment and decaying infrastructure, Republicans continue to push for more military spending along with the use of more military contractors such as Halliburton, KBR and XE (aka Blackwater). All the while, they rail against the growing deficit.

What about that makes any friggin’ sense?

Well, apparently it makes sense to former President George W. Bush. According to former Argentine Prime Minister Nestor Kirchner, Bush told him that “all the economic growth that the U.S. had had, had been based on the different wars it had waged.”  Wow!

So, according to Bush, our chief economic stimulus is war?! No wonder he ignored the warnings of 9/11. No wonder he invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. It was part of his plan for economic growth!

If our economy is based on war, then why, during the two longest wars in U.S. history, aren’t we thriving? Why are so many Americans unemployed? It would appear that Bush’s war theory makes as much sense as Reagan’s trickle down theory.

I have a better suggestion for improving our economy. Let’s cut our $692 billion defense budget in half. We’ll still have a budget more than three times the size of any other nation – enough to ensure our place as the biggest, baddest bully on the planet. And we’ll have money to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and invest in new industries that create jobs for people without killing others.

Who Are We Afraid Of? (Part II)

Posted on by

It was recently announced that the U.S. military budget ($692 billion for FY 2010) now exceeds military spending by all other nations combined. That’s right. We now spend more on defense than all 194 of the other countries in the world! And that doesn’t even include the money we spend on Homeland Security, or most of the money we spend on intelligence gathering. (A recent expose’ by the Washington Post reported an estimated 854,000 people work in the secretive information gathering business in the U.S. No one knows how much money is being spent on the endeavor.)

There can be only two conclusions from that data: We are the most powerful nation in the world. And we are the most paranoid; maybe with good reason.

According to Wikipedia, “as of March 31, 2008, U.S. armed forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.” Of course, we have large numbers in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. But we still have 52,440 in Germany, 9,660 in Italy and 35,688 in Japan more than 60 years after WWII. We have 28,500 in the Republic of Korea more than 50 years after the Korean Conflict. We have 9,015 in the United Kingdom (are we expecting a repeat of our Revolutionary War?), 47,236 in East Asia, 3,362 in North Africa … the list goes on.

Given the state of our economy, what could possibly justify the expenditures? If they’re not needed, we’re wasting an incredible amount of money. And if they are, we need to change our foreign policy, because we must be the most hated people on Earth.

Why Do We Allow Republicans To Ignore Election Results?

Posted on by

In 2008, voters repudiated conservative politics by electing Barack Obama as President and voting for overwhelming Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. But, based on the actions of Republicans, it would appear that they have simply chosen to ignore the results. The House has passed bill after bill in order to live up to the campaign promises. The President has repeatedly reached out to Republicans. Yet the Senate Republicans have stonewalled virtually every initiative with parliamentarian tricks. They have placed secret holds on more than 100 Presidential appointees. They have threatened to block many more. And they have used filibusters a record number of times.

This level of obstructionism is unprecedented in U.S. history and voters should make Republican candiates pay for it this November. But according to early polls, it appears that the Republican strategy may work. Voters are angry at incumbents – all incumbents – not just those who have stalled reforms. And voters are angry at President Obama for not doing more about the unrelenting gusher of crude in the Gulf of BP. Never mind that the cozy relationship between Bush/Cheney appointees in the Minerals Management Service allowed BP to apparently cut corners with safety. And never mind that the best minds in science and in the oil industry seem stumped as to how to proceed.

It would seem that many in the public won’t be satisfied until the President dons a diving suit, descends a mile under the surface of the ocean and personally shuts off the wellhead himself.

Seriously, people, there are only four submersibles in the world capable of operating at that depth and none of them are owned by the U.S. Moreover, they are incapable of doing any more than the underwater robots. So the problem has spilled into the ocean and onto Obama’s lap.

Like the financial crisis, the unemployment crisis, the immigration crisis, the national debt and the two on-going wars, the oil gusher is a mess created by the Bush administration. And the Obama administration has been left with the job of cleaning it up. To make matters worse, the Republicans in Congress have done nothing to help.

If there’s any justice in American politics, the Republicans will pay at the polls. But I suspect an uninformed public will reward them for their antics. Republicans will then be able to obstruct even more reforms. And voters will continue to wonder why nothing ever seems to change in Washington.

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

Who are we afraid of?

Posted on by

Following the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, we have no military foes.  (At least not in a traditional sense.)  The Soviet Union is gone, replaced by Russia and a host of independent states.  China has gone from being a perceived enemy to our out-sourced manufacturing state holding billions in U.S. bonds.  And Germany and Japan have not been allowed to rebuild significant forces since the end of WWII. 

The only perceived threats are the failing state of North Korea, which has a large infantry and a few nuclear-tipped missles that are incapable of reaching our shores, and Iran, which has a smaller infantry and a nuclear bomb in the making.  In addition, there is nuclear-armed Pakistan with a government under seige by fundamentalist Muslims. 

True, it’s possible that our relationship with Russia could deteriorate enough that we might eventually have to worry about its nuclear aresenal.  But that would seem to be unlikely, and we have far superior technology along with our own enormous nuclear arsenal.

So, I repeat, who are we afraid of? 

What could possibly justify our continuing expenditures on military weaponry?  We spend more on our navy than the next 13 nations combined.   And, in total, our military expenditures exceed the next 11 nations combined! 

We could trim tens of billions of dollars from our weapons procurement budget and still be more than adequately prepared for any potential threat.  Indeed, one could argue that we could use that money more effectively to prevent poverty and other conditions that lead to war.  What if there were good schools for poor Muslim children and respectable jobs waiting for them after they graduate.  What if that helped them achieve the self-respect they are looking for?  Would they still consider blowing themselves up in a suicide attack? 

What if we relegated the neo-cons’ misguided “Plan for A New American Century” to the garbage bin of history where it belongs?  What if, instead, we quit trying to dominate the world?  What if we quit using our lone superpower status to support the imperialist designs of our large corporations?  What if we quit using our political clout and collective wealth to exploit the natural resources of less developed nations?

Or what if we used a portion of our enormous military budget to pay down our national debt?  Yeah, I know.  Why on Earth would we want to do that?

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

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.