On Friday we briefly covered at AMTV News an intriguing new
development in the realm of neuroscience and its potential commercial and most
likely military applications.According
to the BBC, the new project “Sentinel (SystEm for Notification of Threats
Inspired by Neurally Enabled Learning)…is being touted as the world’s first
‘cognitive-neural’ binocular-threat warning system.
Sharon Weinberger explains how it works in practice:
“A high-tech camera scans a wide field of view, and then
picks out potential threats based on sophisticated algorithms that mimic
the human vision system. Then images of those threats are flashed in
rapid succession through a viewer to the user, whose brain signals are
being monitored. When the brain spots a potential threat and gives off
the P300, the signal is detected and the user is visually alerted to
focus on that specific image.”
The goggles were developed under a
research project funded by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA).It is an
initial foray into “military neuro-enhancement using what is called a
brain-machine interface.”DARPA is
preparing to embark on a veritable “brain race” funding similar brain-computer
interface projects to help “intelligence analysts sort through satellite
imagery.”
Commercial and medical applications are foreseeable
including “controlling prosthetics” and for the “automotive industry” to help
design safer cars.According to
the chief scientist Dr. Deepak Khosla of HRL Laboratories, however, the “holy
grail of course” is whether or not these technologies can be designed to
“decode higher level information” – to read minds.
Beyond mind reading the military applications proffer “more
novel use of armed drones” ultimately allowing soldiers to fight remotely and
brining up a host of ethical issues over “projecting human intelligence into a
device” according to Jonathan Moreno, a professor of bioethics at the
University of Pennsylvania.
Should an adversary use similar technologies the dynamics of
future wars, where mass armies of drones fight each other under control of
distant humans, would be wildly dissimilar to today’s.
Star Trek Episode: “A
Taste of Armageddon”
In Gene Roddenberry’s first Star Trek series in 1967 the
original crew of the USS Enterprise visit the planet Eminiar VII whose people
fight a war with a neighboring planet.However, once visiting the planet Captain James T. Kirk is warned by
Eminiar leaders he should not have come because a Vendikar fusion bomb had just
hit and killed a half million people.The only problem is the capitol city is in pristine order, there are no
signs of war and no destruction to speak of.
The crew of the Enterprise soon finds out that the people of
Eminiar VII fight a totally simulated war, but it turns out to be no mere game
of intergalactic Risk.It is
completely controlled by computer algorithms, which launch wargame attacks and counterattacks,
then calculate the damage and select the dead.Citizens deemed as “killed” must submit themselves to real
executions inside “disintegration booths” based on the results.
While our current small
wars have little resemblance to the World Wars of the last century and future
wars waged against emergent nations of China and Russia may resemble the Cold
War – proxy war – may take on a whole new meaning as both sides employ newer
and newer technologies.
Iran, Syria, Russia and China are planning the “biggest-ever wargames in the Middle East,” according to an unconfirmed report on the semi-official Iranian news site Fars News.
A Syrian official denied the claims, however, China and Russia have
come to the aid of both countries in recent months at the UN Security
Council, vetoing military intervention in Syria and expanded sanctions
on Iran.
According to the report this new axis, as it were, are preparing
90,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 1,000 tanks for the massive joint
maneuvers, which are to take place along the Syrian coast within a
month.
It has been recently reported that Russian armament sales will continue unabated to Syria including shipment of refurbished Cold War era attack helicopters.
The shipment has been reported to have turned back off the Scotland
coast after losing its insurance due to the controversial nature of its
mission, however, its transponder has since been turned off and
verification cannot be achieved. It is possible the armaments are still
on their way to Syria.
Russia’s tacit support of the Bashar al Assad regime has the US State
Department dismayed, however, in light of covert training, funding and
harboring militant opposition elements in Turkey, a NATO member, the
western nations are hardly blameless in the intervention. It has been
reported that presumably US, UK, France, Jordan and Turkey have Special Operations Forces in Syria
since at least December of 2011 training opposition forces and
providing reconnaissance. Outfinanced and outgunned and fearing another
Libyan style multilateral qu d’etatIranian Quds Force and Russian SOF have also been reported providing similar assistance to the Syrian military.
Russian interests in the region center around the deep sea ports of
Tartus and Latakia. In 2007 Russia endeavored to reestablish a
permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean for the first time since
the Cold War. Needless to say the prospect alarmed many in Washington
and Tel Aviv. China has a similar and potentially sticky port access issue
in Gwadar, Pakistan in a region where NATO and US forces are waging a
full-blown drone war and are covertly, as in Syria, aiding opposition
forces. It has been speculated that this Balochistan region could change Sino-US strategic equations significantly. An effort in Congress to drive a wedge between the region and the Pakistani government in Islamabad was shelved in February – at least for now.
The Fars News report of war games states that Russian “atomic
submarines and warships, aircraft carriers and mine-clearing destroyers
as well as Iranian battleships and submarines will also arrive in
Syria” and that Egypt has agreed to let 12 Chinese warships cross the
Suez Canal for the exercises. Considering US designs to deny Chinese
naval freedom out of Pakistani ports and therefore projection into the
Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf China has a vested interest in aiding
Russia and its claims to access the Mediterranean.
Syria meanwhile faces international pressure, predominantly from the
West’s NATO member nations, to end a 15-month crackdown on local rebels
trying to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad. But this is of course
more than about “rebels.” The small wars of the last decade are mere
peons on the grand chessboard, however, it looks as though larger pieces
are being moved into place.
You may even wish to delve further into America's Pacific Century: Containing China and indulge in an informative analysis of US hegemonic machinations in a new video from Nile Bowie and Global Research TV.
When it comes to the
growth of domestic government it may be arguable that administrations of
either Democrat or Republicans pursue different agendas, albeit usually
revolving around the prevailing social issues of the day. When it
comes to foreign affairs, however, there is a seamless continuity of
agenda aimed at maintaining and growing – American hegemony.
In
foreign affairs at-large this American influence leads an Anglo-European
coalition through its military arm – NATO. It should be clear,
however, that when NATO acts it is invariably at the behest of U.S.
interests as it “contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of NATO’s
budget. In FY2010 that contribution totaled $117.8 million…But that
factors only direct payments, not deployments of personnel,” reportedCBS News
last year. U.S. equity in NATO has been concentrated even more as
European member nations’ contributions shrank by $45 billion over the
past two years due to fiscal turmoil.
Nevertheless, NATO and its 28 member countries
flexed their collective muscle last month during their summit in
Chicago. NATO announced its first step toward implementation of a ballistic missile shield,
to be deployed in four phases by about 2020, sending clear signals to
those not in the Club – namely China, Russia, Iran and North Korea –
that amid growing security threats NATO is ready to counter any
potential aggressor. According to a statement released by NATO leaders:
"We
have declared an interim ballistic missile defence capability as an
initial step to establish NATO’s missile defence system, which will
protect all NATO European territories, populations and forces against
the increasing threats posed by the proliferation of ballistic
missiles…”
Given the current threat of asymmetrical
warfare from non-state actors it seems as though conventional
confrontations may not be a thing of the past.
This is a layout of just some of the players involved in the
Sino-Russian
containment zone NATO and the U.S. are attempting to
install.
The real containment sphere, as it were, is 4-dimensional
incorporating
land, sea, air, space, and the internet.
Western Flank, Europe
The U.S. and NATO now
have bases and/or military operations in former Soviet spheres of
influence: Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia are
among those little known. Moscow, understandably rejects the idea that
the NATO missile shield in this area is merely for Iran. Russia offered
to operate the missile shield jointly with NATO, but was dismissed by
the alliance revealing the ruse for what it is. NATO’s secretary
general Anders Fogh Rasmussen called Russian “concerns groundless.”
Before NATO leaders met last month Russia threatened to strike the NATO missile shield
should progress continue. Despite the threats, NATO’s deputy secretary
general, Alexander Vershbow, told the conference last month the shield
is "not and will not be directed against Russia" and that Russia's
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) are "too fast and too
sophisticated" for the planned system to intercept. If this is true,
NATO countries will be even more vulnerable as Russia recently tested a new ICBM, which according to the Russian military improves its ability to overcome current or future missile defense systems.
Western Flank, The Middle East
It
has been the plan since 1991, soon after the fall of the Soviet Union,
to have the U.S. infiltrate – diplomatically or otherwise – its former
client states right up to the Russian motherland. The plan, referred to
more appropriately as a “foreign policy coup,” was revealed by Gen.
Wesley Clark to an audience in California in 2007. He claims Paul
Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense, told him that the U.S. has
5-10 years to "clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran,
Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
In 2001, the timetable was given an extension after the attacks of
9/11. While visiting the Pentagon, a classified strategy was revealed
to Gen. Clark that the U.S. planed to dismantle and replace the
governments of seven nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,
Sudan, and Iran. Other than Iran of course, five of the seven
governments have already been deposed.
Somalia remains in the
throws; corrupt, occupied by a coalition of African armies, fending off
fundamentalist factions and offering little more than 21st century pirates. Lebanon was coaxed into uprising in 2006 through a sophisticated “color revolution”
strategy piloted successfully by the likes of the U.S. government
funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – a sort of social CIA.
And
Syria as we have documented in detail is in the midst of a dangerous
foreign backed insurgency focused on delegitimizing the Syrian
government in the eyes of the rest of the world. Should Syria fall,
Russia will lose its only direct ports of access to the Mediterranean –
Tartus and Latakia. As late as 2007 it was revealed
the Russians were to re-establish a permanent naval presence in the
Mediterranean through access to these new ports. Needless to say, this
alarmed many in Washington and Tel Aviv.
A brief by Stratfor.com, a private U.S. intelligence firm, offered this analysis:
“A
Russian naval presence off the Syrian coast could allow Syrian
president Bashar al-Assad's regime to better inoculate itself against a
potential attack by the US or Israel ... The Russians would be offering
an attractive insurance policy."
Recognizing western
efforts to deny Russia this access reveals that the Syrian “civil war”
is really a microcosm – or if its allowed to succeed, a prelude – of
World War III. There are no less than seven countries involved in the
hostilities in one way or the other and because of it Russia has
recently buttressed the Assad government and Russian strategic interests
with new attack helicopters, weapons and advisors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Pentagon, least to say, have not welcomed the move.
Western Flank, Central Eurasia
The
U.S. and NATO now have bases and/or military operations Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan among other Central Asian states including Georgia
where U.S. forces are training their military. While all these young,
recently emancipated countries, are ostensibly democratic there has been
evidence of rampant corruption, rigged elections and ethnic strife as
can be expected from a region carved up quite arbitrarily.
The
U.S. has nonetheless embraced whatever system these post-Communist
orphans have come up with as long as they didn’t run back to a resurgent
Russian Empire. Afghanistan might also be included as one of these
former Soviet states, but of course only for a brief period as the USSR
was rebuffed and sent packing after its botched invasion during the
1980s.
The U.S. and NATO have been in Afghanistan for over ten
years now. Detractors scratch their heads and wonder why the U.S. would
be sucked into another Vietnam, mired in scandal and setbacks. Some call it a quagmire, however, a sober assessment might conclude we were never intended to leave.
Afghanistan, amidst this vast containment strategy is an ideal
outpost. It sits atop trillions of dollars of mineral reserves, a
crossroads for oil essential oil pipelines and offers a perfect peak
into Russia and China.
Since NATO hasn’t been the best houseguest,
killing hundreds of civilians and military personnel in the most
aggressive drone war to date, Pakistan is no longer willing to serve as a
NATO supply conduit. NATO and the U.S. military will now use a
“reverse transit” through three former Soviet satellites (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan)
to ship military equipment out of Afghanistan bypassing Pakistan
altogether. The move is purportedly six times more expensive. Whether
this is a bonafide exit route or merely a way of creating better
partnerships closer to Russia remains to be seen.
What is clear is
that Pakistan serves a similar role to China as Syria serves Russia –
naval access. While many are talking about Syria few are talking about
the fact the Pentagon admits the U.S. is at war in Pakistan. While the cover story is of course the favored fiction – Al-Qaeda reigns in Pakistan – groups, which are funded by staunch pro U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and UAE, the ultimate goal is denial of access as much as it is in Syria.
The Wall Street Journalreported last year
that the Port of Gwadar, in coastal Balochistan region of Pakistan, is
scheduled to be the latest in China’s “’String of Pearls’ wherein China
has also funded construction or upgrades of ports in Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh and Myanmar,” a stratagem aimed at strengthening economic
ties, securing access to crucial resources and projecting force into the
Indian Ocean, Arabian Gulf and the African Continent.
As the U.S.
exits (at least publicly) its relationship with Pakistan, China is
taking over. In addition to the Port of Gwadar China sees the
Iran-Pakistan pipeline, the Turkmentistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India
(TAPI) pipeline as vital to its economic health. To this end China has
delivery of 50 JF-17 fighter jets, a unspecified number of 4,400 ton
frigates, submariner training and possibly China’s more advanced FC-20,
also known as the J10, but details are thin. In the final analysis
Balochistan has been and will continue to be the victim (like Syria) of subversion, destabilization and political sabotage,
"a nexus," writes Eric Draitser at Stop Imperialism, "the point at
which diametrically opposing strategic interests converge." These are
the typical tools of the realist school of geopolitics.
Part II will cover the South China Sea, the South Pacific and India, the Asian linchpin.
The
argument that the Drug War is a colossal failure was won long ago albeit
Washington and many of our local politicians have paid little notice. To them it is a handy campaign slogan
“Keeping Our Kids Safe” and “Our Streets Clean” but the levels of drug use in
America has grown relatively unabated since 1960.
The War on Drugs is a waste of
national and local resources, it has created the largest most unproductive and
corruptive black market the world has ever known, militarized our local police,
slowly eroded respect for civil liberties, and has led to incalculable innocent
deaths.
From
the coca farmer in Colombia to the Drug Czar in Washington D.C. this has to be one
of the biggest examples of market distortion available. There are nearly 11,000 DEA
agents, 4500 ATF agents and almost 650,000 police and sheriff patrol officers obliged
to enforce national drug laws to the tune of $15 billion annually.
Likewise inner city gang members
and suburban drug peddlers instead of creating value, merely loiter, cause
trouble and distribute in their local communities. Similar to the relationship
between a jailer and inmate, both of these groups do nothing for the economy.
Because
of the illicit drug market and its false scarcity the black market has invaded
the inner cities and provided those willing to take a little risk the
opportunity to make money merely by providing a substance that would otherwise
be available at your local drug store or smoke shop. It is often a part time job, but many times is a full time
occupation and with it comes violent gangs because it is not protected as
legitimate property by authorities.
Simple economics.
If
we legalized the current spectrum of illicit drugs as they many of them were
prior to 1930 while drug abuse would still remain a public health concern, the
international black market, wholly dependent on American drug consumption,
would grind to a halt as responsibilities for production, distribution and
regulation would be absorbed by local and national pharmacies. The boogey man would simply disappear
and much like cigarette and alcohol addiction our local substance abuse
infrastructure would step in as it does now.
The Military
Industrial Entitlement Program
If you have yet to read my article
on why I feel the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is in fact one
of our largest entitlement programs I’d suggest you do, but I’ll give you
brief outline. In 2012 it has
become a $1.2 trillion program the largest of its kind in the world.
Similar to welfare, which breeds
dependency and prevents many recipients from reentering the workforce our MIC
prevents countries from seeking their own defense. South Korea, Germany and Japan really have no reason to
build up their own military apparatus even though they are wealthy and peaceful
because we already do it for them and have for over 50 years. We also currently offer our military
training services and foreign aid to 75 smaller countries throughout the
world. Our MIC is their
entitlement. This is a massive
distortion which enables our competitors to better compete against us.
The profligate spending we condone also
subsidizes the industries here at home that would otherwise be producing
innovations of peace rather than warfare and competing rather than waiting for
a generous government contract.
When our government directs funds to Homeland Security and the Pentagon
or to build a massive Cyber Security Center in Utah these are limited resources
that could have been used to deepen our economy.
Nation of Bureaucrats
and Managers not Creators
When you step back and take in the
full breadth of our economy it’s easy to understand much of it isn’t accomplishing
anything. The sectors we have just
covered are what we call living breathing distortions in the marketplace. Imagine what these people could be
creating or servicing if they weren’t telling us what to do, causing violence, creating
boogey men or sitting in traffic?
Granted tax accountants hold our hand through the labyrinth that is the
US tax code, but if it was simple we wouldn’t need this legion of tax coyotes.
Think about the reported
unemployment rate, add the real unemployment rate, which includes
underemployment (a growing problem created by diploma mills) and those who have
given up looking for a job after 90 days.
Introduce everything we’ve just talked about and one begins to catch a
glimpse of our anemic condition. Most
of our country isn’t creating or innovating anything, by virtue of their
unemployment or the distortions created by government
Does Middle East intervention have you down? Tired of burkas, camels, black gold and five-times-daily call to prayer? Don't fret because a new exotic adventure into the heart of the Dark Continent will brighten your spirits!
What is most interesting about this event is it occurred under the ostensible left cover of the Occupy Wall Street protests, an occupied media (all puns intended) and under the right cover of the traditional neo-cons, which permeate many a Beltway think tank.
Backed up by $28 million and 64 Senate co-sponsors (19 Republicans, 44 Democrats, 1 Independent), this new adventure into the heart of the Dark Continent is arguably more than a "disarmament" and "recovery act." What was once, much to the chagrin of this author, a seemingly insignificant command as of its founding in 2006, US AFRICOM has since become a centerpiece of American foreign policy.
In initial reports only the Uganda proper was mentioned in headlines, however, after reading into S. 1067 it is evident that this intervention is about much more than just Uganda. The Commander in Chief will be responsible not only for the "Great Lakes Region", but "all areas affected by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)" under the legislation. Therefore, the operational theatre includes, at least officially, "Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda, [newly independent] Southern Sudan, Uganda, [and even] southeastern Central African Republic (CAR)." That is a whole lot of terrain for 100 advisors.
While neo-con cheerleader Rush Limbaugh have used this latest intervention as a political bludgeon to further wound an already unpopular president, the LRA is not (as Rush would have it) a purely revolutionary Christian militia merely espousing the 10 Commandments and a democratic republic tolerant of all political persuasions against an ostensibly fundamentalist Islamic government
While Mr. Limbaugh is no stranger to making less than informed comments about international affairs his refusal to abjure the LRA and its activities in order to promote criticism of "the regime", as he often refers to the Obama administration, undermines the legitimate effort to criticize Obama's aggressive foreign policy.
While these atrocities may be reprehensible and no doubt the LRA should be brought to justice, if in fact what is reported is true, it is another question entirely whether or not the U.S. should compound its current commitments and intercede on behalf of these central African nations. Mr. Limbaugh was right to question, what are our "national security interests" in the heart of the Dark Continent?
"The Obama team has embraced the U.N. doctrine known as 'Responsibility
to Protect,' which holds that the 'international community' has
an obligation to protect civilians from crimes against humanity—by force, if
necessary—when their own governments cannot or will not.
That doctrine is at odds with the U.S. Constitution,
which empowers Congress to set up a military establishment for the singular end
of 'the common defence ... of the United States.'
Even
so, the emerging Obama Doctrine reflects a fondness for feel-good 'humanitarian
interventions,' through which we prove our nobility by putting blood and
treasure at risk when there's nothing in it for us."
It may be argued, however, that there is very much in it for us - well at least for US multinational corporations. Last year the New York Times reported the U.S. identified more than $1 trillion in mineral reserves throughout Afghanistan, but evidently the Chinese too were hot on the trail having already secured the development of the largest copper mine in the country, according to the NYT:
"American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said."
The bid to win the contract was embroiled in an alleged scandal involving over $30 million, which resulted in the sacking of Afghanistan's Minister of Mines. Imagine this: American soldiers attempting to win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghanis for nearly ten years to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and China literally under U.S. Taxpayer protection is winning precious metals contracts! This was nothing short of an embarrassment, one that was never fully acknowledged, at least publicly.
Considering China's rapacious appetite for minerals and Africa's abundance a less than altruistic motive for American involvement in Africa appears:
The quite reasonable interpretation of Obama's intervention is tripartite in nature; to secure African minerals and fuel against Chinese competition (what I would term resource containment harkening back to a mercantilistic mentality), to combat pirates harassing ships in the Gulf of Aden and to support the Ugandan government whose military provides the bulk force supporting the transitional government in Somolia. East African forces along with a growing number of secret and not-so-secret US drone bases proliferating throughout the Middle-East and Africa forms a coalition not dissimilar to that model exemplified between NATO and the revolutionaries in Libya. It is this symbiotic relationship, which is fighting against Al Shabaab, the al Qaeda-linked Islamist militant group which still controls most of Somalia.
In the end the new 100 man mission to central Africa is merely another thread in the massive tapestry of intervention, nation building and adventurism that is American foreign policy. Considering the fact this legislation and its execution has drawn little criticism, but in fact much support shows that although the American political class is in vociferous opposition at home and driving us nuts while they are at it are in bi-partisan fashion loath to abominate war abroad.
Special operations forces span the globe in the War on Terror. Photo credit: ABP World Group LTD.
"The Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) overall strength now stands at 60,000. Of these, some 13,000 were deployed last week in 79 countries." - Kenneth McGraw, Spokesman for SOCOM, according to The Daily Beast - June 25th, 2011
With Osama Bin Laden now officially dead, the World Wide War on Terror has entered its next phase. What began with relatively conventional warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq characterized by large troop deployments, aerial "shock and awe" bombardments, and the expensive ancillary civil reconstruction efforts has morphed into a multidimensional high tech operation blending covert and overt tactics extending into "79 countries" around the world.
The US military in Afghanistan allegedly still pursues the "Doctor of Death", Ayman Al Zawahiri, who has purportedly been tapped (by whom or by what mechanism it is not known) to take over as Supreme Ultimate Commander of all disgruntled Islamic radicals around the world (a.k.a Al Qaeda). Yemen, however, is the US military's growing priority as it plays host to the enigmatic American, Anwar al-Awlaki of Las Cruces, New Mexico, commander of the Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) franchise, and the US' new counterinsurgency warfare lab.
Although GQ noted that a May 5th attempt on al-Awlkai was the "first drone attack in Yemen in a decade" this "lab", according to the Daily Beast last week, is where a "covert war has raged for nearly three years" (keep in mind if this is true, it precedes both the Ft. Hood Shooting and the Christmas Day Bomber both of which al-Awlaki is charged with orchestrating. Any argument using al-Awlaki and his purported connections with these events as a pretext for intervention in Yemen should be viewed as highly dubious).
Working in tandem with US trained Yemeni forces is Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, CIA paramilitary groups, the amphibious mini-carrier USS Boxer, its cruise missile laden submarine chaperone, and "an armada of drones many of designs (and sizes) that are still classified." We can, however, quantify the breadth of this drone army. According to the New York Times, "from blimps to bugs...the Pentagon now has some 7,000 aerial drones compared with fewer than 50 a decade ago." With names like Global Hawk, Predator, Reaper, Shadow, popularized names like the "Beast of Kandahar", and deploying nefarious sounding technologies like the "Gorgon Stare" one has to wonder whether the Armies of Freedom are in fact becoming viewed as something else.
A Predator drone armed for action. Posted at Wired.com.
As a part of a larger $45 million aid package to Somalia relatively new "Raven" drones are being outsourced in America's ever expanding shadow war to Burundi and Ugandan "peacekeepers" in order to cut costs and diversify the counter terrorism efforts there, according to Danger Room. While it may seem odd that the US would give up operational control it looks as if the Pentagon is merely riding shotgun on this one as they are to purchase an unspecified $17.7 million aircraft for the US base in Djibouti, ostensibly a staging ground for the aforementioned drone war raging in Yemen.
The larger portion of the foreign military aid package will be distributed to other corners of the empire, according to the Air Force Times, and will fund and equip foreign security forces with biometric instrumentation, weapons, night vision, armor, etc. in countries like Bangladesh, the Philipines, Maldives, Oman, Malaysia, Kenya, and Mali. Evidently what we're seeing here is just another routine wealth and weapons transfer in the charitable business of military welfare.
While some hawks may hem and haw over "cuts" to the defense budget because of a bad economy and the political appeal of austere budgets on Capitol Hill, most recently evidenced in the reduction of DARPA's budget (a paltry 5%), one must keep in mind the grand strategy of wartime finance. Even though Secretary of Defense Robert Gates humbly claims "as budgets draw down, we have no option but to learn to fight smarter with less" these musings must be consumed while keeping in mind Gates recently ordered the Pentagon to come up with $100 billion in savings and redirected to combat forces (special forces included).
Dubious statements like "budget draw down[s]" must be balanced with the facts. Although DARPA may lose $150 million, Obama has on the other hand asked for a 5.7% increase in the Special Operations budget amounting to $6.5 billion on top of $3.5 billion already requested this year. Therefore, not only is Sec. Gates to funnel massive savings back into various combat theaters around the world, Obama is doubling down on top of it - not exactly austere. This can, however, be appended to Obama's stimulus package; it takes 19 analysts and one or two pilots to operate a drone's mission from take off to analysis. If all 7,000 of the Pentagon's drones were called into action it would mean 133k jobs, imagine that!
World War is defined as "war that spans multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theaters, and last for multiple years" according to Wikipedia. With the United States officially involved in Pakistan, Yemen, Somolia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and unofficially in the rest of the "79 other [unknown] countries" do we doubt at all that this is in fact a world war? This is merely the style of war in the 21st century, fought not by proxy, but by small elite forces under the aegis of incredible technology. The body counts may be lower, but the same principles remain. One major difference between WWIII and its predecessors, however, is this war is also being fought on American soil so don't be alarmed when a swarm of insect drones accompanies you to a town hall meeting, its for your protection - see "Planes, trains, and automobiles: TSA's ever expanding jurisdiction."
For an excellent documentary on the issue of covert remote controlled war visit "Remote Control War's" Facebook fan page and find out how to watch the mind bending documentary.
