Thursday, April 21, 2011

Is the US Military America's Biggest Security Threat?

[Joint Chiefs of Staff at the 2010 State of the Union. Who do they really work for?]

By Rob Kall

America's Military has become the biggest THREAT to US security.

The USA's military is supposed to make the US more secure. But it has become, for many reasons and in many ways, the biggest threat to American security, the American way of life and even America's future. The leaders-- both military and civilian-- have to be considered part of the threat-- part of the problem, part of the system that is endangering America.

The US Military is a huge cancer on our budget. It weakens our economy, weakens our currency, saps our ability to maintain vital infrastructure. The 700 plus military bases spread throughout the world are supposed to make us more secure. Our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are supposed to make us more secure. Instead, the wars have raised the levels of hate for the US to unprecedented levels.

Ron Paul says, today, on CNN, "We have fallen into a terrible trap, doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden wanted us to do."

And this is true. To make matters worse we have a president who, like his predecessor, fails to lead and takes orders from his generals. "I'll listen to what the Generals say," both Dubya and Obama have said. As Dennis Kucinich has observed, that is not leadership.

Of course, it's not a simple matter of telling the generals to stand down. John Perkins, NYTimes best selling author of Confessions of An Economic Hit Man, told me, in an interview about his newest book, Hoodwinked, "It's the career people who are calling all the shots and they are deeply influenced by the corporatocracy."

With the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, corporations have been handed even more power, and people like the Koch brothers, who Perkins says are guilty of sedition, are calling more and more of the shots as they buy more and more politicians ways into office.

This gets even more complicated by another problem Perkins describes how now, "There are many many ways to assassinate a person today. You don't need a bullet anymore."

Perkins points out the indisputable fact that Kennedy went against the Military and was assassinated. Eisenhower is credited with his famous speech about the danger of the military industrial complex, but Perkins points out he "spoke about the military industrial complex on last day of his presidency."

Back in those days, J. Edgar Hoover was suspected to have evidence that could "assassinate" the reputations of everyone in Washington, including the White House. Now, the CIA and FBI are agencies with minimal accountability, incredible funding from un-reported drug and gun sale operations, and that leaves out the massive, secret intelligence operations of the military which are even more unaccountable.

It's understandable that presidents are afraid to truly lead and stand up to the military threat that lurks between the lines. It may be, especially with institutionalized vote theft and with Citizens United in place, that we will be unable to use the voting system to change things. If Obama wins, \the corporations win. He's already their man. If the Koch brothers and friends win, and buy a Republican presidency, same thing-- corporatocracy continues.

For some, it's about oil, or access to shipping routes, or minerals or trade opportunities... there are many corporate uses for the US military.

Traditionally, challenges to the military are greeted with accusations of being unpatriotic. We need to change the narrative, the language and the conversation. The US military is no longer serving the needs of the American people It is serving and has long been serving the needs of the multinational corporations-- the same ones that cut jobs in the US by 2.9 million in the past decade, while increasing non-US jobs by 2.4 million, according the Wall Street Journal.

The US Military is really an arm of multinational corporations. It serves the globalization organizations that enforce the regulations and collections and monetary operations of these multinational corporations. The military may not be privatized, but it has become a form of corporate welfare-- we provide the security for their operations worldwide. I don't think they'd do it, because it would be hard to keep the illusion going, but it would be more accurate to talk about the GE Fleet, the Monsanto Army and the Boeing Air Force, just as sports and entertainment arenas are named.

John Perkins suggests that the answer may be to work through corporations. He Observes:

We've gone from a time when geopolitics was controlled by religious orgs, then governments, now corporations.... the next phase is we the people must take control. It's got to be bottom up.

If it's in our corporations, then we can really address through our shopping habits, through persuasion through embarrassing them, getting them to change. We've seen an amazing example of this in Latin America--- ten countries have voted in leaders standing up to the corporations ."

Glen Beck lost his advertisers and is not off of Fox. Boycotts have had some effects in the past. This article doesn't purport to offer all the answers. The goal is to put it out there that the American Military, as it now stands, is actually not for America and has become a dangerous liability threatening and drastically endangering our near and long term security.

We have a problem. First step is to face it. That's what this article is about. The US military is the number one threat to US security. It's leaders are part of the problem.Yes, we do need some form of military strength, but what we have is a cancerous monster that is totally unaccountable and out of control.

This has nothing to do with the brave soldiers who have volunteered to serve under tragically deceptive circumstances. They are victims just like the rest of we the people of America.




Military Intervention in Libya

News from Veterans For Peace
216 S. Meramec Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63105
(314) 725-6005
www.veteransforpeace.org

VFP Statement on Military Intervention in Libya

April 21, 2011

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” -Senator Barack Obama, 2007

On March 19, 2011, the President, without Congressional approval, ordered the attack on multiple targets in Libya. Under the guise of enforcing a “no-fly zone” the United States launched over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles and flew over 113 sorties. At a cost of $1,066,465 per missile that amounts to $117,311,150 for just the munitions, not to mention the fuel and operating costs for the ships and planes used in the attacks. A USAF F-15E Strike Eagle was also lost in the conflict at a cost of $31.1 million. There was also the unseen cost of the aircraft used in the rescue mission and an unknown number of civilians injured.

From 1979 to 1989, the United States Central Intelligence Agency conducted Operation Cyclone, the largest and most expensive CIA operation in its history. Hailed as a great success, Operation Cyclone successfully led to the unseating of the USSR supported People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). Operation Cyclone exploited fundamentalist Islam to motivate a group which became known as the Mujahedeen, funding and arming them to push the PDPA and the Soviet Union out militarily. Members of the Mujahedeen included Osama Bin Laden, and many other global figures in the group we now refer to as Al Qaeda.

Operation Cyclone, aside from being almost entirely covert, bears a striking resemblance to the current US operation wherein a sectarian and rather brutal totalitarian regime is being overthrown with US support by exploiting Islamic fundamentalists. While we know little about the rebels the US is aiding, we do know that many have fought against the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has a long history of fomenting the overthrow of governments not supporting our financial interest. That history also shows repeated violent backlash against the US both by those supported, and those who have been overthrown.

Oil prices have also climbed to their highest levels since 2008, another unseen cost of war. As unemployment continues at 9.2%, many Americans will be unable to keep up with rising fuel costs. This problem may lead to increased unemployment if people can't afford to get to their jobs, leading to a further downward spiral of the economy. In Yemen and Bahrain uprisings seen as part of the “Arab Spring” have been violently suppressed without significant action from the US; it is worth noting that both governments have been extremely compliant with US corporate interests in reference to our energy interests, and both nations allow US bases to be housed on their soil.

While Gadhafi's actions against the Libyan people are reprehensible, the air strikes have not prevented his ground forces from being able to attack rebels and civilians. There are many atrocities occurring around the globe, but the United States government does not have the capability to fix them all. Additionally, bombing military targets and imposing a no-fly zone does very little to assist starving people and prevent human rights violations. Turkey has proposed diplomatic solutions to this crisis, yet the UN and NATO have continued military strikes. With no clear goal in mind, when is the end of the mission? Is the ousting of Gadhafi the only goal? Is it the role of the UN, NATO, and US to set up a new government by use of force? Is collateral damage and enormous costs from air strikes worthwhile without an endgame in site? Has the US government not learned from interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan that going to war without a plan leads to exorbitant and never-ending costs? History shows us that this type of intervention rarely goes without blowback and unintended consequences, perhaps with a $1.4 trillion deficit and a domestic budget in crisis our best outcome would be to support peaceful alternatives and not add to the violence of a Libyan civil war at all.

Todd Arkava, MD

VFP Member
Chapter 89

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Why Doesn't the President Lead?

By Dennis Kucinich


PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. We're in Washington, in the Capitol building with Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Thanks for joining us again.

DENNIS KUCINICH: Thank you.

JAY: President Obama will be speaking soon about his deficit plan. Some people are saying the White House is more allied with the Republican Party than sections of the Democratic Party when it comes to the deficit discourse. What's your take on this?

KUCINICH: I think those people are probably right. I mean, how can you have a discussion about the deficit without looking at the fact that our defense budget has grown over $700 billion a year, that we will spend trillions of dollars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan? Now we have a new war in Libya. No one's talking about reduction in those areas. Where the discussion is, we're going to reduce the basic benefits that people have to take care of their health. I don't buy it.

JAY: The whole kind of taking on of the deficit as the issue argument has been embraced by the White House. They kind of gave up on the debate, whether the issue was deficit fighting or the issue was moving the economy.

KUCINICH: Well, how did we get a deficit? I mean, the Bush tax cuts added a trillion dollars. His wars have added several trillion dollars. The Fed, through their program of quantitative easing, has pumped trillions of dollars into their own bailout program for banks. The deficit and the reason why we have it underscores the transfer of wealth that's occurring in this country from the great mass of people into the hands of a few. And the Obama administration's actually presiding over that. That's, like, their job, to continue to accelerate the wealth upwards. That's why Wall Street has such extraordinary influence on the economic policy of this administration. That's why we have such a high level of unemployment. That's why the Dodd-Frank bill doesn't reach to stop the kind of black box derivatives that are going to drive another cycle of boom-bust. That's why the oil companies have so much influence in our energy policies. That's why privatization is in the background of the attack on the post office. That's why we're still at war. That's why we're being dragged around the world on imperialist policies that have nothing to do with America's mission to its people. So yeah. I mean, so we end up with a deficit. Yeah, we have a financial deficit. But we also have a moral deficit.

JAY: The president apparently is going to say on Wednesday night that he's going to follow the lead of this presidential deficit commission, this bipartisan commission, which apparently takes as its underling assumption that the fundamental issue facing America is to reduce the debt. And there's going to be--and apparently he's already putting into play debt reduction [inaudible] somewhere near, not at the rate of, but near what the Republicans are calling for. What do you make of this kind of internalization and lack of combat on the argument itself?

KUCINICH: Well, let's think about this. The president is going to accept the lead of his deficit reduction commission. I have an idea. Why doesn't the president lead? Why doesn't the president challenge these corporations who have basically single-handedly driven the United States economy over a cliff? Why doesn't the president challenge the military-industrial complex, which is now putting us into a fourth war? Why doesn't the president challenge not just the tax cuts to the wealthy, but conditions where corporations are getting away without paying any taxes at all, including one corporation that is tied quite directly to one of the president's top economic advisors? I mean, you can't pawn this off on some commission. I mean, presidents have always done that. Like, oh, I'll appoint a commission, let them make the decision, and I'll implement it. No, that's not the way it works. We elected Barack Obama president of the United States, and we have a right to expect him to lead on these economic matters. And there is no discussion about creating more jobs. There is no discussion about getting America back to work. And, frankly, you know what? If you've got people working, that starts to lower your debt, because people are paying money in. But the geniuses on Wall Street decided that a certain amount of unemployment is necessary for the proper functioning of the economy.

JAY: Certainly [inaudible] high amount of unemployment.

KUCINICH: Right. So what do you say to ordinary people who voted for President Obama and seem to be getting--they voted for one thing, and they seem to be getting another thing, and they say to you, well, what should we do?

KUCINICH: I think it's important to explore these inconsistencies, and to ask questions, and to demand that we move forward as a nation, where everyone achieves economic progress. We're seeing a jobless recovery. We're seeing an intensification of the differences between rich and poor. That's happening on the watch of a Democrat. I mean, frankly, we need to challenge the president not to simply live up to his promises, but to live up to the promise of his administration that the American people bought into when they rallied to his candidacy in November 2008. I was president during that inaugural. I saw two million people gather on the Mall in a ceremony of extraordinary hope. You could feel the energy on the Mall that day. You could summon it if the president wanted to and put it as lightening in a bottle. And yet we've not only seen this energy dissipate, but we've seen put in its place an agenda that is so corporatist, so inflexibly dedicated to Wall Street's description of where the economy has to go, that it's demolishing the hopes of millions to save their homes, demolishing the hopes of millions to be able to have jobs, demolishing the hopes of millions to be able to have a level of health care which they have a right to expect.

JAY: Thanks for joining us, Congressman.KUCINICH:

Thank you.JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

[End of Transcript]


DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.