NATO Summit in the Rearview: The Big and Expensive Non-Event

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

The NATO summit held in Chicago, Illinois has been hailed as a success by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and President Barack Obama.  But has America’s police state erased its 1968 “police riot” or did administration media shills merely apply white out?

The lack of incidence was a testament to, among many things, the continued abdication by the American left of their traditional anti-war stance, having since 2008, been demonstrably inoculated by the Obama presidency.  Those who did make it to the protest, an estimated 3,000 souls marching last Friday, were reported to be representing over 100 groups of international origin or part of the Occupy movement at large.

The relative peace enjoyed by the City of Chicago during the protests was also likely due to the last minute decision to move the G8 conference to Camp David.  Had the G8 simultaneously occupied Chicago beside its military arm – NATO – the affair may have been more, well – lively.

In order to secure the City of Chicago the summit was declared a “National Special Security Event” by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and according to reports it sure felt special.  Pepe Escobar of Asia Times opined:

"It’s lockdown time – complete with Iraq-style concrete barriers; battalions sporting upgraded riot gear; “extraction teams” to snatch and grab pinpointed protesters in a “low intensity conflict” environment; and an Orwellian guest star, the LRAD (long-range acoustic device) – a sound cannon bound to “ensure a consistent message is delivered to large crowds”, according to the Chicago Police Department."

Not only was there extensive drilling, planning and canvassing prior to the event NATO appropriately established its patented no-fly zone over Chicago lest an Occupy ultra-light plane a la Mad Max or some crazed anarchist decided to drop any airborne presents.

The scene once again reminded the nation that any U.S. city can transform instantly into highly controlled environment where safety is subordinated to any and all other concerns.  As Bernard Harcourt of the London Guardian reports, “The NATO summit will come and go, but Mayor Emanuel has authorized a ‘new normal’ of militarized social control in Chicago.”

Eight-foot tall, anti-scale security fencing went up all over that perimeter and downtown, including Grant Park; and the Chicago police – as well as myriad other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and the US secret service – were out in force on riot-geared horses, bikes, and patrols – batons at the ready. Philadelphia Police Department is sending over reinforcements to help out; Chicago has also asked for recruits from police departments in Milwaukee and Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC. Meanwhile, F-16 warplanes “screamed through the skies as part of a pre-summit defense exercise” and helicopters hovered incessantly.

Orchestrating the massive symphony of security from an “undisclosed location” were over 40 federal agencies.

On the ground tactics were also utilized, namely herding protestors in order to “tire them out” and utilizing layered maneuvers with bike or foot patrols passively monitoring protests while heavily armored contingents awaited out of sight.

The most startling of all the strategies used to diminish the possibility of making an international scene was classic gumshoe investigative work – no, not really.

Chicago Police didn’t mob down protestors like they did in 1968 they just pre-emptively raided and arrested “selected protesters considered dangerous.”  It later turned out that the “NATO 3” who were officially charged with terrorism were in fact patsies set up once again by informants under the employ of the U.S. Government’s Terror Factory.  The evidence purportedly discovered has since been claimed to have been “planted” by law enforcement.

In the final analysis the NATO summit was a microcosm.  The U.S. government displayed an overwhelming force posture replete with bells and whistles, its respective agencies and the city spent more than was needed, it trumped up terrorism to malign forces it perceived as a threat, the entire affair received little media coverage and an anemic anti-war movement since the rise of Barack Obama failed to attract any meaningful attention.  Don’t they get it?  Nobody finds “eat the rich” or Robin Hood tax programs newsworthy.  It was a non-event just as the state had hopped it would be.

Perhaps the summit was a non-event precisely because it wasn’t important.  Not one person in Chicago and relatively few in the media drew attention to the fact this “international event” was in fact quite parochial.  NATO is a powerful minority in the world.  The grand military alliance, which represents a crumbling western economic bloc, based on the G8, and comprising 28 other countries is being challenged.

Notice that Vladamir Putin, an ostensible member of the G8 didn’t attend Camp David.  Many of the G8 members have in fact been outpaced economically by the BRICS.  China is obviously bigger than everyone save the U.S.  Brazil is bigger than Canada, Italy and the U.K., according to the IMF.  India is larger than Brazil…

Under this lens is it not understandable that creating a missile ring in defense of Europe might be viewed as just another expensive entitlement program as we have discussed before?  Vladamir Putin seems to understand what it’s meant to delineate and where the missiles are pointing - so do the Chinese.  With the rise of new nations and severe debt crisis riddling western democracies the world is in the throws of an obvious re balancing act, what will emerge is unknown, perhaps a tripolar world?

Where and when do Russia and China have their say?
When and where will a tripolar world assert itself?

The global military industrial entitlement complex is merely another type welfare program similar to domestic liabilities crippling Greece and other nations.  The wildly expensive missile defense shield around Europe furthers the analogy of the microcosm mentioned above.  According to Harcourt:

"...this police state serves, in reality, as our new welfare state. The security mania represents our truly unique way of stimulating the economy, of employing piece labor, of creating government jobs and subsidized contracts. Just think of the amount of overtime pay that we are disbursing with all this policing. Instead of investing in schools and education, in job training, or in re-entry programs, this is how we invest in our future. And we never think of it as government welfare because it falls in that sacred space of security…"

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.

How Drug War Dinosaurs & Traffic Jams Kill Our Economy II

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Read PART I of this series here.

PART II

Image Source: Documentary Film: American Drug War

The Drug War Dinosaur

            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

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.

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.