But The Military Industrial Complex is an Entitlement Program

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

"Beware the Military Industrial Complex"
Dwight D. Eisenhower

“No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of perpetual war.” 

– James Madison

Over the past few weeks Jamie Weinstein (Daily Caller), Bruce Fein (Constitutional lawyer), Robert Zarate and Jamie Fly of the Foreign Policy Institute (FPI) have been in a bit of a tiff over the particulars of Ron Paul’s foreign policy.  This all culminated yesterday in an op-ed featured at the FPI’s website.

According to Jamie Fly, Ron Paul believes "military spending is the primary driver of the federal deficit."  This isn't Dr. Paul's quote, it's Fly's, the Congressman never put it that way.  But hey, who can resist a straw man?  


Jamie Weinstein, on Sep. 15^th and in much the same vein, asserted this was Congressman Paul’s “#1 foreign policy error” in the FoxNews Google Debate:

“We’re in 130 countries.  We have 900 bases around the world.  We’re going broke.”  Paul urged.

To me these are three separate and accurate statements, however, Weinstein proceeded to pick flies out of shit and tacitly defended our foreign adventurism on the basis that, according to Robert Kagan of The Weekly Standard:

“…the scary projections of future deficits are not ‘caused by rising defense spending’, and even if one assumes that defense spending continues to increase with the rate of inflation, this is ‘not what is driving the future spending.’  The engine of our growing debt is entitlements.”

Defense expenditures may not be what is “driving the future spending”, but it is most definitely riding shotgun.  Defending our profligate military spending in a country, which spends almost double that of our closest “adversary” China, on the basis that it isn’t the “primary driver” of our fiscal crisis is obfuscating more than the obvious.  This is tantamount to the claim that the flooding of the last third of the Titanic’s bulkheads wasn’t the primary driver of it sinking to the floor of the Atlantic.

          Admiral Mike Mullen himself claims the U.S. debt crisis in our number one threat to national security!  Yet in an almost a self-fulfilling prophecy the Department of Defense asks for more money.  Bruce Fein, Ron Paul’s campaign advisor, proffered his own arithmetic of departmental requests:

The final tally accounts for “approximately one-third of the entire budget and almost 100 percent of the projected budget deficit” according to Fein.

Jamie Fly disagrees: “Mr. Fein is wrong on several counts” namely for “placing the blame for the federal deficit squarely on defense spending” yet he never expounded on his assertion besides parroting Leon Pannetta, secretary of defense (hardly an objective source, but lets not let that detract from his argument):

“If you’re serious about dealing with the deficit, don’t go back to the discretionary account [which includes defense spending].  Pay attention to the two-thirds of the federal budget that is in large measure responsible for the size of the debt that we’re dealing with.”

            Again, Mr. Fly never actually addressed Mr. Fein’s evidence, but did attempt to cast doubt over Ron Paul’s commitment to restoring fiscal sanity:

“…in truth, Congressman Paul isn’t all that serious about dealing with the deficit.  What he is serious about is pushing U.S. foreign policy towards a reckless isolationism.”

It’s a stunning red hearing!  How someone, with a straight face, can claim Ron Paul, known as Dr. No, the most ideologically consistent Congressman in the U.S., responsible for supplying the impetus behind the national conservative grass roots movement known as the Tea Party, a devout libertarian and reigning world champion of Austrian economics is anything but dead serious about reigning in spending is patently absurd. 

Ron Paul is the only Congressman who has, three times, attempted to repeal the national income tax, the base of the big government beanstalk!  Dr. Paul may want to strengthen the promise of Social Security, to preserve it only for U.S. citizens whom have paid into it and he may want to abolish the taxes, passed under Clinton, on its benefits; he may even want to create personal retirement accounts instead of allowing government to raid the central fund every time they have an itch to spend!  But Ron Paul is one of the few to advocate, “allow[ing]…young people to just flat out get out of the [social security] system.”  My God man, pick up a sample of Ron Paul’s congressional record! 

Paul is beyond reproach when it comes to restraint; he applies this philosophy domestically and consistently in his foreign policy.  He is one of the few.  I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Fly that Ron Paul:

“bristles at being called an isolationist, preferring the term ‘non-interventionist.’  But a more accurate term would be ‘neutralist.’” 

What is wrong with neutrality?  Switzerland, Sweden and Finland were in the thick of two world wars yet remained relatively unscathed, have we nothing to learn from them?  Are we to relegate them to the 13^th floor of history?  What about Costa Rica?  During the last few decades of ideological tumult in Central and South America, Costa Rica remained consistently productive and peaceful.   

Our Founders couldn’t warn us enough about remaining uninvolved in Europe’s “perpetual warfare.”  They were unbelievably prophetic on this point considering the hordes of metal and munitions that would tear the continent apart nearly 150 years later.  It is not therefore, a giant leap of faith to suggest that our Founders would have also blessed our neutrality with regard to the Middle East.  This was a principled prime directive not a transient notion as neoconservatives and Washington’s national defense cliques would have it.

The most sober analysis one could offer our current foreign policy stance while taking into consideration the statistics cited above and the massive constellation of ancillary private organizations, jointly referred to as the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is that it is all an entitlement program!  You couldn’t, with any intellectual honsesty claim otherwise.  


In four ways it provides an entitlement: first to those presidents whom wield its power for political gain either through victory or diversion, second to those military and intelligence commanders whom direct massive swaths of tax payer dollars to influence world affairs, third to a high tech industry addicted to generous government injections and lastly to foreign entities whom “invite” our intervention and therefore defense subsidization in order to accomplish what they cannot on their own. 

Mr. Fly mentions the lessons in the "dangers of neutrality" the U.S. was taught in the 20^th century, obliquely referencing the sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor, two tragedies whose circumstances are quite dubious.  He omits, however, to his own chagrin the more profound lessons we have learned about intervention: WWI (the ramifications of which lead to WWII and the rise of Communism and of Middle East dictatorships), Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now North Africa and the current "non-genocide" in Libya.  These lessons have and will fill debates (at least mine) and libraries for years to come. 

            There is one poignant truth, however, according to Bruce Fein:

“America is engulfed in perpetual global warfare…There will be no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse or Tokyo Bay…terrorism cannot be killed like Osama Bin Laden, nor can it be confined within geographic limits.  And no political figure will take the risk of announcing the end to the war against international terrorism because the risk of another terrorist incident cannot be reduced to zero.”

In other words, for now, war is peace, has been for ten years and will continue to be in perpetuity or - insolvency, which ever comes first.  But Mssrs. Weinstein and Fly are correct it won't be the MIC's fault, it will be ours.

The Real GOP Choice: Paul or Romney?

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Who's it going to be GOP?

Ron Paul is now and has been for sometime a legitimate candidate.  Romney is on his second chance, Paul is as well.  A recent Rasmussen Report shows Romney is the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama, but Paul is within a percentage point.  The question then is, who will the GOP rather have as their candidate, Paul or Romney?


          Mitt Romney has shown himself to be a skillful debator and a smooth orator.  Ron Paul on the other hand has a voice that unfortunately comes off a bit whinny, he tends to stammer and loses a bit of coherence from time to time.  However, when in small groups, in interviews with major media and when compared to last year the Congressman from Texas has made huge improvements in his ability to connect with people. 


          When the rubber meets the road, Romney is peeling out.  Mitt received some Big Love from fellow Republican Jeff Flake today adding fuel to establishment support along with the capitulation of Tim Pawlenty who as of last week permanently subdued his criticism of Obamneycare and jumped on board with the former Governor of Massachusetts.  Other nominations like Sarah Palin (if she doesn't run), conservatives stars like Paul Ryan, and other campaign dropouts that may be cannibalized are waiting in the wings.  Is there any doubt that John Huntsman will propose in similar fashion and marry into the Romney camp once his campaign has embraced its futility?  I think not. 


           Meanwhile... Rick Perry has a commanding lead over both Paul and Romney in major polling, yet he falls behind Obama 46% to 39%, according to Rasmussen.  Perry enjoys broad support among conservatives and has Lord Limbaugh fawning since I can't remember, but can he "win over suburbia?"  The differences in Romney and Perry are succinctly described by Alex Castellanos, former aid to Romney:

“You can see the playbook pretty clearly here: It’s populist against patrician, it’s rural Texas steel against unflappable Romney coolness, conservative versus center-right establishment, Texas strength versus Romney’s imperturbability, Perry’s simplicity versus Romney’s flexibility.”

It is on this question that the Romney appeal factors in, electability.  For once Ron Paul is a factor is this equation as well.  Paul is in third in a Real Clear Politics average if the non-candidate Sarah Palin and those voting for her are factored out.  The recent surge for Paul came after Bachmann's latest backfire.


          If we accept, contrary to the generic ballot, which favors Republicans on average by 0.5% that if Perry wins the GOP nomination he will lose to Obama, who is most reflective of the country's and the GOP's values?  Most Americans want Obamacare repealed while only a third believe it is good for America.  In this case Romney and his health care reform in Massachusetts isn't copacetic with the American mainstream.  


          When it comes to bailouts, while Romney criticized holding General Motor's hand on CNN he championed the TARP program, the essentially ex post facto legislation endorsing the myriad of financial vehicles covertly concocted by the Federal Reserve to bailout big banks.  At the 2009 CPAC Conference Romney evidently didn't believe America could survive without them:

"I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system."

          Ron Paul on the other hand excoriated all attempts at price fixing, printing money, secret lending, etc. and therefore shares more common ground with the American people who loath all recent bailouts than Mr. Romney.  Moreover, the American public wants to see the Federal Reserve fully audited, however, Mitt is contented with current auditing practices as he "believes" the Fed is "independently audited" and doesn't want Congress meddling in its affairs.  If the Fed is so transparent perhaps Romney will explain why Bloomberg required the US Supreme Court and a FOIA request to pry out that the they lent $1.2 trillion in secret lifelines to foreign banks.

          When it comes to foreign adventurism or national defense (can't seem to find a consensus definition) the American public overwhelmingly wants out of 10 years in Afghanistan, doesn't know or care for anything in Libya, almost half don't think "major" cuts in defense will put America at risk, and almost 80% of Americans feel we spend too much protecting other countries.  Listening to our generals, as Mr. Romey would have it, most likely doesn't accomplish a more noninterventionist foreign policy something mainstream America seems to crave. 

          If the campaign were tomorrow, the GOP would be in a tough position to choose to either to win big and lament four to eight years with a flexible patrician or a choose a arduous intellectual battle on behalf of a consistent and ardent libertarian.  If the GOP wants change, I'd suggest they put their helmets on and run with Ron.  

          

Why the "Great Depression" Annoys Me

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Image Source: VintageVivant.com

It is like walking into a classroom where the professor is teaching a class about how the Soviet Union put the first man on the moon...  

          It seems as though every time someone refers to the Great Depression they subsequently thank Franklin Delano Roosevelt for literally digging us out of it.  If they don't they invariably annunciate the macroeconomic dogma (the belief that public institutions ought to influence the economy), that the Great Depression "shattered" the previous orthodoxy presumed by our Constitution, that free markets are self correcting.  

          While this may be true, that economic mores radically changed after the turn of the century, to not thoroughly explore why we abandoned over 125 years of tested theory, practices, which raised a feeble constellation of colonies into an unparalleled economic power by 1900 is blatant intellectual disinterest and frankly annoying. 

          The problem with using the Great Depression to bolster the macroeconomic strategies of monetary and fiscal stimulus, favored tools of the new economic vantage, is they were used just before, during, and after the decade long depression and therefore can be included among those suspected influences, which exacerbated what would arguably have otherwise been only a serious recession.  Banking panics prior to 1929 stretching back to the founding never persisted for more than a couple years let alone over a decade!

          Furthermore, the previous orthodoxy's policies, those promulgated by Adam Smith and lain down officially by the Founders, suffered damning blows in 1913 (see Federal Reserve, 16th and 17th Amendments) and were almost all effectively on the bench by 1933.  To blame laissez faire economics, an environment where interactions between private parties are free from government intervention, for the Great Depression and its abnormal longevity is not dissimilar to blaming a sidelined quarterback for his backup's interception and the subsequent touchdown. 

          To be sure, the prospect that public officers could wield control over our economic environment was (and still is) intoxicating and considering what we had achieved since our founding it was a pretty easy sell.  The very idea of control is incredibly self aggrandizing and antithetical to free markets as Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, according to Joyce Appleby: "described an economic universe that was not subject to the laws of the state, but on the contrary, subjected the state to its laws."  In other words, the government can't make the grass green.  We may be able to isolate and explain many parts of an economy because of these known laws, but to expect to steer the fluidity, dynamism, and titanic scope of modern economies with any sort of precision parallels only the naïveté and results of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. 

Image Source: Foroureconomy.org

         The motives for abandoning over a century of limited intervention was not to create an army of patriotic economic sentinels through the Federal Reserve, economic councils, or the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies.  The United States scuttled sound economics because of a newly landed elite's common desire to accomplish what European aristocracy had achieved, government sponsored capitalism also known as "crony capitalism."  It is imperative to understand this was not the necessary evolution of capitalism, quite the opposite, it was a return to feudalistic if not mercantilistic economics! According to W. Cleon Skousen:

“In Europe, certain confederations of wealthy families had gained control of their respective governments and were making a financial killing.  Some of the wealthy families in America coveted the rich government monopolies of their trans-Atlantic cousins.”

          Look no further than J.D. Rockefeller, "competition is a sin."  The "robber barons" of the new world sought to harness central government to wipe out competition, expand their interests, and bail them out in times of need; all on the backs of the American public.  This desire should not be used to deride capitalism and definitely should not be considered laissez faire.

          Capitalism, an economic and political system where trade and industry are controlled solely by private owners, is a novel idea to this world.  The relationship between the state and the economy, until the 1700s, had historically been an intimate one; the nostalgia, therefore, to recapture lost conventions was persuasive.  In the words of Mrs. Appleby:

“…the mores of a more traditional organization of society do not die out with the dominance of capitalism.  Rather they regroup to fight again with new leaders and new causes.  Any history of capitalism must contain the shadowy history of anticapitalism, sometimes carried out in the name of a new theory, but often as a reexpression of values that prevailed before the eighteenth century.”

          This is what was sold to the American working class and all over Europe, a repackaging of benighted policies, by an odd amalgam of interests including, but not limited to eager politicians, "...wealthy industrialists, heads of multi-national banking, leaders in the academic world, and some of the more innovative minds in media" according to Skousen.  While their goals were progressive, as their moniker insinuates, their methods for achieving those goals were in fact regressive.  American aristocracy required a powerful and gullible ally in its quest to fend off the waves of creative destruction inherent within capitalism, the working masses offered that alliance.  From Appleby:

“…critics saw industrialization [brought about by capitalism] as a rapacious transformation engineered by an upstart upper class eager to destroy both the aristocracy and the peasantry, which had once been protected from economic turbulence.” 

         No doubt!  Who wants either peasants or aristocrats in a modern economy?  The new socioeconomic organization of capitalist economies resembled more a tomato than a pyramid, however, the foundation of the New Deal was essentially integrated by the Great Depression even before the legislation by the same name was passed through Congress in 1933.  

         The grand bargain was achieved.  In turn for 8 hour work days, minimum wage, elections for nearly all public officials, social insurance, etc. the elite received the keys to the castle: the Federal Reserve, a public cartel of private banks, introduced plans for a fiat currency and proclaimed their members immortalis corporatus, while an income tax fed their cause and pooled massive wealth under Washington's discretion.  

          By dismantling the Senate and its strict allegiance to the state legislatures a centralized and seemingly endless regulatory bureaucracy arose with the powers to legislate, adjudicate, and enforce most laws and without democratic deliberation beckoned legions of lobbyists.  And the grand prize, an emboldened executive, with what would become the most spectacular military in human history was proffered to carve up the world into spheres of influence under the guise of making the world safe for democracy.

          Here we are over 90 years later still wrangling over similar issues: pensions, benefits, workers rights, depression/recession, and blaming it all on capitalism again while our currency is debased, we prosecute multiple foreign wars and occupy foreign lands, our benefits teeter on the brink of insolvency, while we bail out the aggressive multinational and foreign banks which wrought this travesty upon just us as they did in 1929!

          All of this old baggage rehashed only to fight amongst ourselves over how to pay for it all in some apocalyptical pincer move on what is left of a middle class first created almost a century ago by ideals almost forgotten.

This is the position of a mere serf and why talking about the Great Depression annoys me.

Debt Wars: Why Defense Cuts Are Essential

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Massive defense cuts are necessary to any honest GOP plan to reduce the debt.  The American people clearly bought "fiscal responsibility" from the Tea Party and its candidates, we are waiting for delivery.

"War is just one more big government program."

- Joseph Sobran

We have never spent more money on American defense than we do now.  Estimates range anywhere from a conservative $739 billion (calculating Department of Defense spending only) to 1.415 trillion dollars, which calculates much of the country's defense mechanism (FBI counterterrorism, Homeland Security, etc.) including interest on their debt - the cost of freedom.

Source: Winslow T. Wheeler, Director Straus Military Reform Project, Center for Defense Information

What are we defending against?  Is it worth the changes in our culture since 9/11?  Our current World Wide War on Terror is aimed ostensibly against yet another ideology, but instead of Communism we are faced with Islamic fundamentalism.  As evidenced by the Cold War, ideas "good" or "bad" are notoriously difficult to combat with big defense budgets and military stratagem.  In fact, it was one American president, his unparalleled naiveté, gullibility, and his "great blunder", which lead to not only Hitler, the rise of the Soviet Union, and WWII, but also to the fractionalized and tumultuous Middle East we know today. 

President Woodrow Wilson (D) is famous
for his campaign to make the "world safe for democracy."
His theories proved otherwise and lead to the death of millions.
Read "Wilson's War" for the break down.

While it is crucial to have a war of ideas delineating the differences between fact and opinion; concepts, beliefs, and ideologies will ultimately prevail or fail on their own.  While there is little doubt there are combatants willing to sacrifice their lives in order to advance their radical ideas, Islam's jihadists, for the foreseeable future, will be incapable of rhetorical, let alone, physical invasion.  To repel invasion and to ensure self determination or what we call sovereignty is the ultimate motive of our armed forces; today their motive is evidently much different.  Moreover, even if the penultimate threat of a nuclear armed Al' Qaeda materialized, the fear of this potential event isn't sufficient to justify the invasions of pre-nuclear states Afghanistan, Iraq, or Yemen.

Lets expand a bit, maybe we are being a little myopic when it comes to the War on Terror as there are of course other threats over the horizon.  Humanitarian crises, like the Libyan Civil War or Clinton's interdiction in Kosovo, justify our intervention on this basis of enforcing a UN mandate or international law, not necessarily the judgement of Congress.  It is argued that if we leave them unresolved and if tyranny is left unchecked it will embolden dictators and despots all over the world to oppress their people.  How this effects the United States' national security is anyones guess, but humanitarianism isn't the only call to arms, there is the cosmos to worry about too!


The Pentagon has been prepping for war in space as early as 2004 and ever since space has been a contentious subject between the US, Russia, and especially China.  Considering our mutual ability to shoot down satellites and with potentially massive stores of energy on the moon future resource wars in the mass expanse above our blue planet would be catastrophic.  


If that weren't enough to worry about, state-sponsored and multinational brigades of hackers have raised much alarm causing the Pentagon to declare the internet "operational domain."  With all of these dire possibilities cropping up virtually everywhere (pardon the pun) it seems as though the Pentagon believes the sky is almost certain to fall without constant intervention.  


There is, however, an alternative way of understanding this paranoid view of the world, our unbelievable spending associated with it, and our legitimate national security challenges.  By recognizing the phenomena of mission creep (after reading the definition, think WWII) and considering the warning given to us by our 34th president, Republican General, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it becomes clear how much we as a nation have departed from our founding principles. 

President Eisenhower's military industrial complex (MIC) has on one hand become the epitome of a self-fulfilling prophet:

“The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior, which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.” 

             -  Robert K. Merton, from Social Theory and Social Structure 

And on the other hand (as evidenced in the interest paid on the debt incurred by defense organs) the MIC which includes multinational banks and the Federal Reserve, benefit from the Pentagon's "reign of error":

“…a lot of people are getting rich, building careers, and accreting power out of hyping the money flow. While soldiers at the pointy end of the spear and taxpayers are getting hosed, generals are going through the revolving door to big jobs in industry; congressional staffers on defense committees move into high ranking political jobs in the Pentagon, which then gives them a spring board to big jobs with the defense contractors; industry titans move between jobs in industry, the Pentagon, and back to industry; and contractor PAC money flows to congressmen.  The result is a self-sustaining harmonious circular flow of money through the political economy of the MICC -- what we in the Pentagon call a self-licking ice cream cone.”

            - Excerpt from Madison's Nightmare by Chuck Spinney at The Atlantic 

While it has recently been reported that "liberals see chance for big cuts in defense" I find it easy not to hold my breath.  While it is fun to poke holes in neo-conservative dogma, especially when faced with the obvious incongruent belief that while small government is crucial to freedom so is a large military (constituting 19% of federal spending), it is sobering to realize that Big Peace is a bipartisan sham.  

It is a sordid fact that liberals are often times if not more culpable than "conservatives" when it comes to groveling before the military money pit.  My cynicism is corroborated by three recent phenomena: 1) the total disappearance of the anti-war left after the election of Barack Obama 2) that one of the most liberal senators turned rabidly liberal president actually asks for more money from Congress, amidst a deep recession and perilous debt, for special forces to infiltrate over 70 countries around the world and 3) that apologists of Barack Obama, namely Center for American Progress' Lawrence Korb, lie openly to their base that the president "has dumped George W. Bush's overall strategy for preemptive attacks against terrorist states."  Mr. Kob, those aren't love letters Obama is dropping preemptively on Libya.  

World War 3: Covert, high tech, and still very expensive

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

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.

Insect drones like this one will be designed

to hide in the shadows while recording in swarms. 

Posted at Wired.com

 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. 


UPDATE 8/8/11:  New article by Al Jazeera details the US military's secret armies.

The Patriot Act Is Not Conservative

Jack Hunter
The American Conservative
5/31/11

If Americans needed another reminder of why the Democratic Party is absolutely worthless, they got it during last week’s Patriot Act extension debate when Senate Majority leader Harry Reid again behaved exactly like the Bush-era Republicans he once vigorously opposed. In 2005, Reid bragged to fellow Democrats, “We killed the Patriot Act.” Today, Reid says that anyone who opposes the Patriot Act might be responsible for the killing of Americans. Dick Cheney now hears an echo and Americans deserve congressional hearings—as to whether Harry Reid is a sociopath, mere liar, or both.

But while Democrats stand pat for Bush Republicanism, the GOP now debates the extent to which it will remain the party of Dubya. Tea Party favorites like Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee and Congressmen Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Allen West and others, all voted against the Patriot Act. To varying degrees, each of these GOP representatives questioned the act’s effectiveness and legality. But unfortunately, most Republicans still won’t ask any questions.

The “War on Terror” that defined and preoccupied Republicans during the Bush era brought with it not only massive government growth and debt, but an unprecedented expansion of extra-constitutional state power, symbolized most famously by the Patriot Act. In the name of national security, government officials could begin wiretapping phones, hacking into email accounts, prying into business records and spying on citizens—all without a warrant and at government officials’ own discretion. Defenders say the Patriot Act did what needed to be done after 9/11. Critics say it did away with the 4^th amendment.

Let us say both have a point, and that for arguments sake, both Harry Reid and Dick Cheney are correct in arguing that it is sometimes necessary to surrender our liberties for increased security. Is this still true a decade after 9/11? Will it be true two decades after 9/11? How about three? Have the actions of Osama Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists forever altered our Bill of Rights?

Allegedly, the default position for conservatives is to distrust the government and defer to the Constitution. Concerning the Patriot Act, too many conservatives blindly trust the government at the expense of the Constitution. This type of thinking mirrors the logic of the Left, in which the constitutionality of a big government program like Obamacare is considered irrelevant due to the severity of the problem at hand. The liberal healthcare ends justify the unconstitutional means. This characteristic mentality of the Left is exactly how most of the Right approaches the Patriot Act—though it is an outright rejection of what most conservatives of any generation have held most dear.

Think about it. Conservatives get upset about many things on a regular basis—ACORN corruption, NPR funding, demanding that French fries be renamed “Freedom Fries.” At any given time there is always some new and outrageous rightwing distaste of the week.

But most of these controversies are a speck on a gnat’s ass compared to the damage done to the Constitution by the Patriot Act. For genuine constitutional conservatives, something like NPR funding is undoubtedly wrong but ultimately trivial and peripheral—while the protection of the Bill of Rights is crucial and integral. If George Washington or Thomas Jefferson were alive today, are we to believe that they would be more outraged that: A. The federal government helps fund public radio. B. The federal government snoops on citizens without restraint. Those who answered A. truly don’t understand the mindset of the men who founded this country.

A Republican critic of mine once asked me during a radio broadcast “Jack, can you show me where any American has been harmed due to the Patriot Act?” I replied, “Can you show me where any American has been harmed by Wikileaks?” The caller said he couldn’t, but stated that he believed private individuals shouldn’t haven’t access to private government documents. The gentleman was basically saying that whether or not Wikileaks has hurt anyone to date is irrelevant—the whistleblower outfit shouldn’t be trusted with such power to begin with. I argue the same is true of the federal government. So did the Founding Fathers. That’s why they wrote the 4^th amendment.

The entire reason we have a written charter like the Constitution is to specify the enumerated powers that define the hard parameters of our federal government. Among those powers is national defense and security. But much of what we call “defense” is anything but. Similarly, a total police state could undoubtedly provide much better security, though few Americans would desire a country so void of liberty. After all, most Americans can barely tolerate the way the federal government handles air travel these days.

When Ronald Reagan said there was nothing closer to eternal life on this earth than a government program he could have easily been describing the Patriot Act. When Barry Goldwater said that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” he could have easily been describing the minority of Republicans who now at least question the Patriot Act. When James Madison wrote, “Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other,” he could have easily been describing our current state of perpetual war that now gives seemingly permanent life to the Patriot Act.

If the “War on Terror” is a perpetual war—as so many politicians readily contend—have we now permanently given up our liberties? If terrorists really do “hate us for our freedoms” is the best method of defeating them to permanently surrender our historic freedoms? And if so, who is really winning the War on Terror? Us or the terrorists?

By the very nature of their philosophy, conservatives are supposed to question their government. And given the very nature of our Constitution, this is precisely how the Founders would expect any true patriot to act.

Read more of Jack Hunter's work at The Southern Avenger.