22 Ways The MIC is an Entitlement Program

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

BEFORE YOU READ: Realize how big this building is.

The Military Industrial Complex in the News

Last Friday the Associated Press released this video about East Orange, New Jersey.  Previously crime-ridden, suffering from gang violence and urban blight, East Orange recently became proving grounds for high tech pre-crime technology, courtesy of the federal government. 

From nearly a mile away and controlled remotely from the comfort of either a surveillance station or a squad car a bright red beam of light fixed above a video camera can instantly bathe anyone suspected of possible criminal activity.  Aaron Dykes of InfoWars.com breaks it down.  While this is an astonishing development it is unfortunately a typical domestic attendant of our national security posture. 

Last September while covering a debate between libertarians and neo-conservatives I highlighted one of the most glaring inconsistencies within conservative dogma.  While on one hand, with regard to social welfare, conservatives spit incendiary rhetoric at nearly every encroachment by the federal government; on the other, in foreign policy they applaud almost identical invasions (pun intended). 

Why is there is no cry from so called conservatives for restraint when our National Security Budget for fiscal year 2012 is estimated at $1.2 trillion, $185 billion of which is in interest payments alone?  It is because Eisenhower’s infamous Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is not dissimilar to its sprawling domestic cousins – a burdensome and ineffectual entitlement program with teeth.  The MIC provides an entitlement in four ways, from September’s article:

“…First to those presidents [and politicians] whom wield its power for political gain either through victory or diversion, second to those military and intelligence commanders [and bureaucrats] whom direct massive swaths of tax payer dollars to influence world affairs, third to a high tech industry addicted to generous government injections and [fourth] to foreign entities whom ‘invite’ our intervention and therefore defense subsidization in order to accomplish what they cannot [or will not] on their own.”

By no means is this list exhaustive.  As John Stossel recently points out on his Fox News program the noble foreign policy goals, which our Dear Leaders burden themselves with know no bounds.

            The American public wants a lot from their military and considering they pay $1.2 trillion per annum, a lot is to be expected.  But as we have seen in the case of East Orange, local law enforcement has become militarized and it isn’t the first time pre-crime technology has been in the news.  Pre-crime software has been used in Baltimore, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. to route future criminals for months!

Militarization of Law Enforcement

Much of these developments fall under what I term industrial blowback, the unintended allocation and consequences of our military’s equipment and or expertise.  For example, a local New York CBS News affiliate just days ago reported the NYPD experimenting with drones over the city.  It might seem reasonable at first; New York City after all is one of the world’s largest metropolitan areas.  The problem is, drones are being used in rural areas as well and not just to protect the border. 

Last December a North Dakota family was arrested with the help of a Predator drone for ‘stealing six cows’, which evidently kept wandering onto their land; pretty expensive toy for such a remote area.  These aren’t isolated incidences, there are scores of other examples of our military’s tools being used at home namely a field-tested surveillance blimp previously designed to help troops in Iraq conduct door-to-door raids.  If you’re a resident Ogden, Utah you might have already seen this little beauty flying over your Sunday BBQ.

The fifth entitlement recipient is obviously local law enforcement and like any welfare queen it is quickly becoming addicted to government largesse.  Faced with addiction the best thing to do now is: Step One, Admit There’s a Problem.  Unfortunately, as is most often the case, intervention is all that is left.  In many ways this explains the rise in the protest movement and protest candidates like Ron Paul.  However, while the protester may have been Time Magazine’s Person of the Year and Ron Paul is more popular than ever our national security infrastructure is still metastasizing, as there has been no real anti-war (or its anti-police state ancillary) movement since the election of Barack Obama exposed it as largely anti-Bush.

Where have they gone and why?  Obama has yet to come through on closing Guantanamo Bay, we are still mired in Afghanistan after 10 years, still involved in regime change and the Transportation Security Administration is still busy reaching in our pants and they have left the airports too.  Toting their backscatter x-rays among other things onto American highways, beta testing their V.I.P.E.R. teams, testing their F.A.S.T. technology at large public events and still flouting the Constitution, just ask Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).  On Monday TSA agents detained him on his way to the Senate in brazen violation of not only the 4^th Amendment, but also his privilege as a Senator from arrest before a vote in Congress.

    Sen. Paul may be awake and speaking out against the growth in our police state, but it has been evident watching the endless GOP debates that mainline conservatives weren’t influenced by the Washington Post’s two-year investigation exposing Top Secret America.  This amazing series details how politicized and privatized our national security infrastructure has become. 

Since 9/11, 854, 000 people now hold top-secret security clearances, 33 building complexes have been built for top-secret work, the equivalent of almost 3 Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings – nearly 17 million square feet!  The most shocking statistic testifies to an inherent conflict of interest.  Apparently over 265,000 private contractors retain top-secret clearances; our government has effectively incentivized creating enemies!  But do they actually create real life straw men?  There is evidence.  Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News exposed the FBI for as much in this video, a must see.           

            Still not convinced ex administrators like Homeland Security’s Michael Chertoff are raking in millions after building up their own entitlement nest egg and slipping into the private sector to reap the rewards?  Below, I expand on John Stossel’s list and show how foreign policy hawks turn into central planners right before your eyes.  According to Stossel: “People Want The Military To…”

·      6) Keep Oil Cheep – As I have argued before oil may in fact be abiotic, in other words it is not a fossil fuel and in fact renewable.  This would clearly undermine the Peak Oil theory, but that’s an argument for another day.  However, as OilPrice.com recently covered, America has the largest oil and gas reserves on the planet!  Instead of fighting in the Middle East “conservatives”, libertarians and independents should fight job-killing pseudo-environmentalists here at home.  While cheap oil is what Americans want invading armies merely create more instability and therefore higher prices.  The entitlement – not only the high gas prices and record profits for oil companies, but establishing a false scarcity providing the environment for green energy subsidies to flourish whether they are justified or not.  Peak Oil theory sure makes for strange bedfellows…

·      7) Contain China – The Defense Department really hasn’t done a good job of this at all.  Take Afghanistan for example.  Evidently it not only harbors terrorists, but nearly $1 trillion in precious metals too.  Unfortunately we lost the opportunity to develop Afghanistan’s biggest copper deposit to, you guessed it, China.  I guess our troops are meant to scurry around the country trying to win hearts, not mines.  Next door, the Pakistani government asked China to build the Gwadar deep-sea port, potentially giving China broader access to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.  If that wasn’t all, Africa is opening up to the China too.  The Seychelles is the newest country to court China for a military base and this time it’s right in the backyard of a not-so-secret U.S. drone headquarters.  Want more examples?  I’m sure you can find them on your own, HINT: Brazilian oil.  The entitlement is obvious – foreign defense subsidies.  Evidently it’s a buyers market with two super powers quietly competing.

·      8) Chase Terrorists – We’ve done that for over 10 years, but evidently we’re now in the business of helping them – wait what?  CLUE: Who were Libya’s rebels?  We also kill U.S. citizens whom are accused of aiding terrorists, as was the case in Yemen when Anwar Al-Awlaki and his teenage son were eliminated by a CIA drone.  If that was a touchy subject the NDAA bill made it ok to arrest U.S. citizens without trial.  Appalled?  Don’t worry the new Expatriation Act will revoke U.S. citizenship if you’re deemed a menace.  What!?  I thought I read somewhere all men were created equal and with certain unalienable rights?  Maybe terrorists aren’t human then, that must be it.  The entitlement – perpetuating fear, a war that by definition can never end and expanding Executive power.

·      9) Train Foreign Militaries to Chase Terrorists – Danger Room, Wired.com’s national security blog, just reported we have new clandestine commando team operating near Iran, known as Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Cooperation Council, JSOTF-GCC for short.  They are responsible for training all of our allies in the Middle East and even Blackwater’s newest guise is still winning big contracts. To understand a little more about our peace president’s Secret Wars here is the Daily Beast.  The entitlement – more foreign defense subsidy, reliance on the private/public intelligence apparatus, private contractors, and equipment manufacturers.

·      10) Protect Sea Lanes – Evidently we do more than that.  Our Coast Guard has been responsible for not only our shores, but Iranian shores as well.  They recently rescued 6 Iranians 50 miles southeast of the Iraqi port city of Umm Qaser.  I thought they were called the U.S. Coast Guard not the U.N. Coast Guard.  The entitlement – Iranians can spend a little more on domestic concerns rather than their own coast guarding capabilities with the U.S. on the ready.

·      11) Stop Genocide – This is the most compelling argument for intervention, I know it tugs at my heart, but as was the case in East Timor and Darfur unless you have resources crucial to American interests you’re most likely SOL.  The entitlement – public relations i.e. “The Global Force for Good.”

·      12) Protect European, East Asian, and Middle East States from Aggression – Don’t they have their own militaries?  Also when it comes to rich countries like Australia, Japan, Germany and South Korea why can’t they begin to take care of themselves?  The entitlement – a generous tax break for their economies at the expense of the U.S.

·      13) Humanitarian Missions – As I mention above the latest “humanitarian mission” in Libya put into place a dubious regime.  The entitlement – you don’t have to have legitimate broad appeal to start a revolution just the right connections.

·      14) Respond to Natural Disasters – We responded to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and to the 2010 Haitian earthquake, which killed thousands and while these efforts are praiseworthy where is the mandate?  It isn’t found in the Constitution and the American people are rarely asked to vote on it.  Our charity is undeniable in this country; there are many ways of aiding needy foreign nations without involving our military.  In the end its our money and our governments should be planning and saving for a rainy day of our own.  The entitlement – disaster relief, in other words, national disaster insurance package courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

·      15) Secure the Internet – The ultra secret National Security Agency is completing construction of 1.5 million square foot NSA West officially known as the Cybersecurity Data Center in Utah.  Regarded by Sen. Orin Hatch as the largest defense construction effort in recent memory.  The entitlement – brand new battlefields and weapons a la stuxnet!

·      16) Police the Mexican Border – American’s may want the military to do this, but this is one of the legitimate activities the military is not engaged in.

·      17) Transform Failed States into Democracies – Democratizing states are notorious for being violent.  In the end effective democracy is more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.  We’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for years and we haven’t come close to achieving the results American’s would consider acceptable.  The aforementioned nations are not healthy, peaceful or friendly.  The entitlement – public relations, “making the world safe for democracy.”

A few Stossel didn’t mention in closing:

·      18) Opening Markets – We opened the biggest market on Earth not with a missile, but with a ping-pong ball.  Richard Nixon’s open door policy was one of his forgotten triumphs.  When we have used military force things generally get a little dicey: 1854 Mathew C. Perry forces Japan to trade with the U.S.  Touched by power politics by 1904 Japan turns imperialistic and expands its holdings into Russia, China, culminating in the attack on Pearl Harbor.  The 1953 CIA backed Iranian coup d’ etat results in the Iranian Islamic Revolution.  The 2003 Iraq invasion results in an Iranian Super-state.  The entitlement – more problems to fix.

·      19) Policy Leverage – A recent article on Essential Intelligence covered the “crisis” brewing in the Strait of Hormuz, where most of the world’s oil now passes.  The dot connectors suspect that this may be in part a ploy to highlight the vulnerability of the strait and therefore muster support for an Arabian Oil Pipeline.  The entitlement – further subsidization of international corporations’ adventurism abroad ignoring the emancipating prospect of energy independence at home.

·      20) Support NGO Activity – The rise of non-governmental organizations has been met with both hope and skepticism.  Alleviating the burden of nation building, relief, intelligence gathering, etc. from governments saves money, but when these NGOs become guises for politians and their special interests they become a menace.  John McCain’s International Republican Institute had its hands all over Libya.  The entitlement – first dibs on contracts, information and influence in nation building.   

·      21) Direct Foreign Aid – Is the easiest and most obvious form of foreign welfare, most Americans are against it unless a small socialist ethnocracy is the recipient.

·      22) Drug War – Since the Vietnam era nearly every theatre of war has seen an increase in drug activity.  It unfortunately is a way of providing funding for covert operations, it provides future leverage against “fri-enemies” and is very often a backdoor through which to pass and garner information.  The entitlements are endless – off the books funding, information gathering, immunity, but most importantly it sustains deep state politics a world beyond the purview of our representatives in Congress.

Ron Paul: Capitalism's Cold Warrior

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

From talk radio luminaries Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck, from GOP candidates Mitt Romney to Rick Santorum, from think tanks the Foreign Policy Institute to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and from sea to shinning sea "conservatives" agree Ron Paul's foreign policy is "nutty" even "misguided and extreme."  Really?  History, a shrewd understanding of geopolitics and advancements in technology tell us a different story.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense.  As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

  

- Ronald Reagan 

The Cold Warrior

          If it wasn't already obvious looking back upon Ron Paul's (R-TX) strong pro-individual voting record, communism is anathema to his brand of Republican libertarianism.  Since Dr. Paul's first election, amidst the Cold War in 1976, he has been an avowed anti-communist.  Not only has he fought the domestic growth of collectivism, in the face of militant communism abroad he has stood steadfast against attempts to undermine American defense capabilities.  This may be a surprise to many in the GOP and the Tea Party, but the Air Force veteran was an anti-communist cold warrior.

          That's right!  While Ron Paul never championed the massive stockpiling of nuclear weapons (only to be dismantled later or sold all over the world) he vehemently opposed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II) under President Jimmy Carter.  In the October 1979 issue of his "Freedom Report" he refused to capitulate to the naivete in Congress:

“Over the past twelve years — years of almost constant disarmament negotiations — the Soviet Union has outspent us on military offense and defense by 35% to 40%. This, the greatest military build-up in the history of the world, has led to rough equivalency between the USSR and the USA at best, and, at worst, clear inferiority for America.”

           

          Tired of political compromises and understanding that the Soviet Union was taking advantage of our our good will and of those sympathetic and apologetic to its cause, Dr. Paul consistently opposed these types of arms reduction treaties.  In his view these treaties would have further emboldened the Soviet war-machine at the expense of US national security.

(Also read how Ron Paul fought both Republican and Democrat presidential administrations in their subsidization of communist China the Soviet Union via the Import-Export Bank.)

           Years later in 1983, Ron Paul additionally opposed the nuclear freeze initiative.  In that year's issue of his "Freedom Report" he captured the aggressive nature of the communist empire. “The American people want peace and freedom; the Soviets desire world conquest”!  He explained:

"The Soviet rulers are willing to sign treaties only when they advance their plans for conquest. The Soviets have violated SALT I and other treaties at least 27 times. The use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan is only the latest in the long series of treaty violations. I am unwilling to trust the security of the U.S. to the promises of the Soviet Union." [emphasis added]

          Ron Paul instead of reaching mere nuclear parity with the Soviet Union wanted, like president Ronald Reagan, to turn the tables on them and push the defense paradigm into new territory.  He believed the best offense was a strong defense, hence his support for the controversial Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or "Star Wars." 

          Dr. Paul was condemned by those opposed to "militarizing space" fearing its "provocative" nature would encourage commensurate posturing by the Soviet Union.  Ron Paul understood as did General O. Graham progenitor of the "High Frontier space defense concept and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)" that the United States was already behind the Soviets in the militarization of space.  According to Gen. Graham the U.S. "better believe there will be weapons in space.  [Soviet missiles will] be flying right at us."

          Rep. Paul defended his position on SDI even as a libertarian during his first presidential bid in 1988.  Libertarians, strict advocates of non-interventionism, were concerned about the bellicosity of the "Star Wars" concept.  Ron Paul, however, understood the program to be the future of American defense and in fact, contrary to SDI critics, far less provocative and more sensible than the far flung constellation of U.S. commitments and awkward alliances it maintained around the globe:

“I think that it’s worth doing research on SDI, but I would take the money out of the money we spend overseas. Seventy percent of our military money is spent overseas subsidizing rich allies [emphasis added] that should be spent on the defense of this country, such as SDI."

(You were once able to see this televised interview, but it has since been removed by Google and YouTube at the behest of ABC, CBS, and Viacom Int. "Sorry about that.")

          Ron Paul has undoubtedly beeen vindicated on this point as we have seen China now militarizing space.  To be unprepared to fight a space based war against this growing power would be unwise.  It looks as though, however, the U.S. Air Force might be siding with Paul's clairvoyance and longtime support for missile defense. 

 The Military Industrial Complex as a Foreign Entitlement Program

The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."

- George Washington 

          After the Cold War ended presidents George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton never attempted to seriously reduce our military footprint abroad and allow Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea and others to protect themselves even though they had been successful, peaceful and modern economies for decades.  

          There continue to be "mavericks" like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and "conservatives" like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who've eschewed a recalibration of our force posture.  While they lament and bemoan welfare queens at home their stubborn dedication to an antiquated Cold War alignment has allowed a world wide defense entitlement program for the wealthiest of nations to persist, all at the expense of the American tax payer and our economy.   

          For instance, as of 2011 Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea are #3, #4, #8, #15 top economies in the world respectively, why must the American tax payer subsidize the defense budgets of these advanced and successful economies?  (A list of U.S. military installations is fascinating to read; not to mention our "black sites.")  

          Mainstream GOP candidates rebuke Paul's desire to bring our troops home and sell our bases on the basis that "the world changed after 9/11" and that Ron Paul is somehow not in touch with modernity's demands.  This trite little maxim exposes the irony of so called foreign policy conservatives.

          The first charge of government is to protect its people, this is political science 101.  By subsidizing foreign governments in this most basic task, especially those whom compete directly with American business (of which the aforementioned economies most certainly do) we are essentially assuming that role for the world and therefore are subsidizing foreign taxpayers!  This subsidy allows them to forgo spending on their own defense and allocate funds to either their private sector in the form of tax cuts or to the public sector in the form of entitlement programs, what a deal!

          While our presence in foreign countries may in fact give our American firms first dibs in key markets and curry favor with this or that regime, is this how we want to do business?  Is this capitalism?  The answer is no and no.  In the end, our profligate military spending allows other nations to better compete against Americans for market share in the deliverance of goods and services, that much we can measure.

          The symptoms of these warfare queens directly parallel the symptoms of the welfare state at home in dependency, distortions in the marketplace, entrenched special interests, bureaucracies, mission creep and self fulfilling prophecies.  Just like a person dependent on welfare, a state (foreign and domestic) will become accustomed to defense subsidies, in other words, instead of dramatized and overblown personal tragedies searching for a bleeding heart warfare queens conjure and inflate threats to US national security in search for a policeman.  Judge Andrew Napolitano from FoxNews on how national security agencies might create their own boogy men:

  

The Future Defense Initiative - Return, Rebuild, Restrain

"...a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."

- George Washington

          We have spent nearly $700 billion on our military alone in FY 2010 and we have a $1.2 trillion "national security budget" for FY 2012, which by itself has accrued $185 billion dollars in interest payments; to whom they pay this to is another story entirely...  The point is we spend approximately as much on our own defense as does the rest of the planet, thus we can afford to take another look at how best to allocate our precious resources.

          Ron Paul for over 30 years has been consistent in his refusal to subsidize the defense of other nations at the expense of the American taxpayer.  By supporting national defense not national offense he can return not only our troops, but our dollars as well.  The paradigm which holds that the ends of our troops' bayonets is the beginning of the line separating the free world from the barbarian hordes is, I think you'll agree, archaic and ineffectual (I love a straw man don't you?).

          But seriously, force projection is the name of the game in the 21st century and people are frightened of losing it, especially when Ron Paul says he wants to bring our troops home and doesn't thoroughly explain what they'll do when they get here.  Moreover, they are also concerned about the massive industry built up around providing military technology.  Companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grunman, etc. provide Americans with well paid high tech jobs and untold amounts of ancillary technologies.  Should you find yourself in this category, I'm here to tell you: we can and will project force and it will require a high tech military industrial complex.

          If you are an avid reader of Wired's "Danger Room Blog" as I am, you will understand that we have enough goodies piling up to make Santa blush: a $1 trillion jet with flaws almost as expensive, force fields a la Star Trek, robot dogs, a legion of high tech drones ranging in size from blimps to bugs, we have mini nukes, flying 'terminators', and 8 more weapons that will blow you away (including a hyper-sonic cruise missile capable of hitting any target on earth within an hour, recently successfully tested).  

          The dreams of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (now known as U.S. Missile Defense) pale in comparison to the technological juggernaut that is the U.S. military.  This is the bedrock upon which to build a new military for America's future and obviously the same reservoir of creativity to tap into for creating the tools to fit the new model.

          The United States currently boasts about 71 submarines (that we know of), which enable our military to conduct surveillance, gather intelligence, deploy covert special operations, precision strikes, battle group operations, and sea denial missions anywhere on the planet.  In sum, the submarines are a fleet of vigilant and mobile nuclear sentinels hidden in the world's ocean.  There is no doubt, at the end of the world there will be cocroaches and American submarines.  The point is this, the future of American force projection is expeditionary in nature predicated on speed and mobility.

Or U.S.S Ron Paul...

           

          The Joint Mobile Offshore Base (JMOB) or interim techniques called Seabasing are the most fascinating ideas since the revolutionary aircraft carrier.  If Dubai or the Japanese can build an entire island for restorts and airports this is surely not beyond our skill set.  A report provided to Congress in 2000 said this technology was "feasible", but the following year the Institute for Defense Analysis said the cost-benefit was not optimal considering alternatives.  As I have outlined there is more at stake than dollars. 

Ron Paul the Radical

          People like Jamie Fly of FPI may regard Ron Paul's "reckless isolationism" as a result of his incorrigable niavete, but as I have mentioned world wide socialism wasn't a goal of the Founders, it isn't a goal of the United States nor is it a goal of its people.  "Isolationism" is drive by rhetoric and as Cleon Skousen aptly surmized "separatism" is more appropriate language:

"This [is] far different from the modern term of 'isolationism.'  The... term implies a complete seclusion from other nations, as though the United States were to be detached and somehow incubated in isolation from other nations."

The idea Ron Paul would cut us off from the rest of the world like feudal Japan is preposterous.  In fact it is our business leaders and over 6,000 diplomats whom are the best ambassadors of American good will, cultural exchange and prosperity not the U.S. military.

          When it comes to Israel, Ron Paul has been unequivocal in his opposition to our cozy relationship and our foreign aid of this small socialist ethnocracy in the Middle East.  His "misguided and extreme" position is very unpopular in Washington and earned him a non-invitation to the recent Republican Jewish Coalition foreign policy debate.

          The idea that Ron Paul's restraint in entangling himself and our national interests with those of Israel is tantamount to being anti-Israel or anti-semetic is patently absurd.  In fact he even stood up for Israel and against Ronald Reagan whom condemned Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear weapons facility in 1979!  Then again was Ronald Reagan a hawk or a dove?

 

           In the end shouldn't we be listening to what our troops have to say?  Ron Paul has received more donations than any other GOP candidate from active military personell.  They obviously see something in his foreign policy worth putting money on.  I leave you with this: