Love of profits vs. the Love of the Prophet (part 2)

[moeen yaseen]

THAT'S JUST MY OPINION

Mike Whitney
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17182.htm

Gold traders love Dick Cheney. Every time he opens his twisted lip and barks out another threat to Iran, the dollar takes a powder while gold futures shoot to the moon. Maybe that’s the way Cheney likes it. After all, he dumped about $25 million in euro-bonds before he took office. Judging by the way he and brother-Bush have flogged dollar, he must have doubled his investment by now.

The old greenback has dropped nearly 35% in the last 6 years while gold has just about tripled. In 2000 the dollar was a trim, sinewy pillar of strength. It entered the ring like a young Mohammed Ali; darting to and fro while pummeling ihis prey with quick laser-like blows that were barely visible. Now, the greenback plods along like a 60 year old Rocky Balboa, wheezing heavily and reeling with every punch; waiting for the one roundhouse that will leave him staring up from the canvas, spitting up broken teeth and blood.

Ooooh; that hurts.

The dollar’s in a heap o’ trouble and Cheney is doing his level-best to make sure that it hits the skids before he leaves office. Just yesterday the snappish Vice President said, "It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power. Then he added ominously, "All options are still on the table."

That oughta put the dollar on life support, eh?

At present, the rest of the world is really wondering if dollar’s going to pull through. Central banks in Europe, Japan, and China have increased money supply and kept rates low in order to prop up the droopy greenback. But that won’t last. Eventually, they’ll all have to raise rates to slow inflation and stop equity bubbles from going haywire. (The Chinese stock market increased by a whopping 140% in one year. They probably don’t want a Dot.com-type meltdown like we had in the US.) Regrettably, once interest rates start to rise, the dollar slip quickly from view leaving only fetid trail of vapor behind.

It’s astonishing how cavalier Cheney and the gaggle of racketeers at the Federal Reserve have been regarding the dollar. After all, why kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

As the world’s “reserve currency” the fed can simply print out a couple trillion whenever it comes up short and bring back boatloads of sleek, Chinese manufactured goods or tankers weighed down with petroleum to power our boxcar-sized SUVs. Or, maybe, Bernanke would rather crank-out another $12 billion in crisp $100 bills, shrink-wrapped and loaded onto pallets and sent off to Iraq where they can vanish in the black hole of corporate malfeasance.

No prob-Bob.

But what happens when the rest of the world sees that the “stewards of the global economic system” (that’s us) are nothing but a bunch of Texas yahoos, religious zealots, and war-mongering boneheads?

See, the funny thing about money is that it requires confidence in the provider that he will honor his part of the deal and operate in good faith. Otherwise, no one would dream of exchanging valuable resources and manufactured goods for silly, green tokens of credit-based fiat money with squiggly writing and funny looking men in powdered wigs on it.

We all expect money to have value, and yet, the Bush team continue to sabotage the currency with their unfunded tax cuts, their $9 per month war in Iraq, and their 35% expansion of the federal government. (Remember when Clinton said the “era of big government is over”?) The result of this craziness was thoroughly predictable; central banks are running for the exits.

Last Friday, the government reported that net capital inflows reversed from the requisite $70 billion to AN OUTFLOW OF $11 BILLION!

The current account deficit (which includes the trade deficit) is running at roughly $800 billion per year, which means that the US must attract about $70 billion per month of foreign investment (US Treasuries or securities) to compensate for America's extravagant spending. When foreign investment stumbles, as it did in December, it puts downward pressure on the dollar.

So what does it all mean?

It means they don’t want our stinking greenbacks. And, if they don’t resume purchasing our debt (US Treasuries or securities) the dollar will join Rocky Balboa on the canvas peering up blankly at the klieg lights.

“The full faith and credit” of the USA does not mean what it did 6 years ago. That’s a fact.

The Bush-Cheney-Federal Reserve axis believe they can keep this ponzi-scheme going by cornering the oil market (attacking Iran) and forcing the oil-thirsty world to accept our feeble banknotes. But that’s just nuts. The Chinese are already killing us by buying up oil and natural gas leasing rights around the world WITH OUR OWN DOLLARS!

It wasn’t supposed to work that way. We thought we were being clever by destroying the American labor movement and shipping our industry to China. We figured we could vanquish the middle class at home while we put the “fear o’ god” in the Chinese with our “shock and awe military” that was supposed to be out of Iraq in 3 years at the most.

How’d that work out?

Now the housing-bubble millstone is pulling millions of home owners beneath the waves while the maxed American consumer is down to his last credit card. In other words, the $11 trillion of new debt that was cleverly engineered through Greenspan’s low interest rate bonanza is about to detonate and bring the whole, wretched tower of American debt crashing to earth.

The US economy hasn’t depended on productivity for years, even though the American people work harder and longer than their better-paid counterparts in Europe. This entire mess was brought on by stagnant wages, the wealth gap, and a system that rewards the villaso-raptures at the top of the economic food-chain. Like Cheney, they believe they can keep this scam going on forever; forcing the world to take worthless sheets green scrip that’s backed up by $8.7 trillion of debt and wouldn’t even make good bird-cage liner.

But, then, that’s just my opinion.

[moeen yaseen]

IRAQIS ARE PEOPLE, TOO

Cindy Sheehan
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17192.htm

After spending two heart wrenching hours listening to two Iraqi gentlemen, one an educator, one a scientist, giving agonizing testimony about what is really going on in Iraq (outside the Green Zone), in Istanbul, I returned to my nearby hotel room and read something from the AP that tore my heart apart even further.
In the article entitled: Americans underestimate Iraq death toll, Christopher Gelpi, a Duke University political scientist who tracks public opinion on civilian casualties in war said:

A better understanding of the Iraqi death toll probably wouldn't change already negative public attitudes toward the war much. People in democracies generally don't shy away from inflicting civilian casualties and they may be even more tolerant of them in situations such as Iraq, where many of the civilian deaths are caused by other Iraqis.

This above statement is unspeakably appalling Why do people in democracies not shy away from inflicting human casualties? If this statement is true then why are we spreading American brand of democracy (fake elections and puppet leaders, i.e.: Bush and Malicki) all over the world. Why do we want more democracies around the world? To inflict more civilian casualties? This is not acceptable to me and I renounce governments and shy away from other humans who do accept these casualties.

This statement ignored a very basic fact, also. The invasion/occupation of Iraq is a horror that was based on lies, deceptions and greed. The people of Iraq are suffering terribly in THEIR country while George Bush, Dick Cheney, and 99% of the American public do not have to sacrifice one iota of comfort or concern because of the terror that is being inflicted on a civilian population that have done nothing to be punished so harshly.

Another one of our fellow Americans had this to say about civilian casualties:

"You have to look at who's doing the killing," said Neal Crawford, a restaurant manager in Suttons Bay, Mich., who guessed that about 10,000 Iraqis had been killed. "If these people are dying because a roadside bomb goes off or if there's an insurgent attack in a marketplace, it's an unfortunate circumstance of war — people die."

This comment also ignores the fact that the occupation of Iraq is a war of choice that never should have been waged. No insurgency existed before American troops were forced to roll their tanks into a country that was filled with innocent people. Would Americans take such a cavalier attitude towards “unfortunate circumstances of war” if it were an equivalent amount of Americans being killed? I don’t think so, 3000 of us were tragically slaughtered on 9-11 and we have used this as a justification to destroy two countries that didn’t attack us and commit genocide on people who just want to be left alone. Now Bloody George has killed more Americans than Osama bin Ladin and many, many times more Iraqis.

During the seminar in Turkey, attendees got up to congratulate the Iraqi men on the resistance in Iraq. Human beings across the world, but especially in the Middle and Near East are proud of the insurgents in Iraq for holding off the “mightiest” military in history. This makes me sick to my stomach. As the people of Iraq are victims, so are our soldiers who are oftentimes there for their 3rd or 4th deployments. What George Bush has done by bending over backwards, frontwards, and sideways to the oil companies and war profiteers is to make the USA the detested laughing stock of the world and make our soldiers targets of people who don’t hate them, but hate what they represent.

In the article from the AP the median number of Iraqis killed that those polled guessed was: 9890. A recent very scientific (yes, science does work, George) study put the median Iraqi death toll at 655,000, and my contacts in Iraq, including the Sheik who spoke yesterday claim that it is well over one million. An equivalent amount of Americans would exceed ten million! I don’t think that anyone would call that an “unfortunate circumstance of war.” Would the deaths be more acceptable if it was a “democracy” that attacked us?

Now Doomsday Dick is traveling the world reinforcing the nuclear option for Iran. Saying that every option is still on the table (for pity’s sake, Democrats, can you put impeachment for these murderers on the table?), is frightening to say the very least. To prevent one country from developing nuclear energy technology, the US is threatening to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran where millions of moderate Arabs will be endangered. A supposed “democracy” that “spreads peace” is willing to use some of its thousands of nuclear bombs, again, on innocent people. Who will stop these maniacs?

The crimes against humanity keep piling up on the Bush Regime. If one stipulates that the invasion of Iraq was justified then Geneva Conventions require that the occupying power protect the occupied, make sure they have medicine and medical attention and clean water and food. BushCo has failed its responsibilities to the Iraqi people miserably and the Iraqi people want our troops out of their country. Dropping nuclear, or our devastating conventional weapons, on Iran would be another crime against humanity for the Bush Regime to paste in its scrap book.

A majority of Americans do find the casualties on both sides unacceptable, but now it's time to go from thinking "unacceptable" to action. We need to get out of our comfy homes and hit the streets in the millions on March 17th, especially in Washington, DC, if for anything else, to demonstrate to the people of the world that citizens in democracies do not sanction killing innocent people. We need to do it for our soldiers, but more importantly for the innocent citizens of Iraq. We need to demand an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and we need to demand impeachment for BushCo to restore the peace and to restore our reputation in the world.

After the program, the Sheik approached me with a translator and apologized to me for Casey’s death saying that: “We don’t want to kill your soldiers, but we are protecting our country, it is our country.”

Time to give the Iraqis their country back.

We never should have allowed Bloody BushCo to go there in the first place.

[moeen yaseen]

VIOLENCE IS THE AMERICAN WAY

Ira Leonard
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17195.htm

"Increasingly, Americans are a people without history, with only memory, which means a people poorly prepared for what is inevitable about life -- tragedy, sadness, moral ambiguity -- and therefore a people reluctant to engage difficult ethical issues." - -- Elliot Gorn, "Professing History: Distinguishing Between Memory and Past," Chronicle of Higher Education (April 28, 2000).

In August 2002, President George Bush began to drum up a war fever in America with a view to toppling Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein, alleged to be the possessor of weapons of mass destruction. Bush did so without providing the evidence, the costs, the "why now" explanation, or long-term implications of such a war.

And by October 2002, The United States Congress not only granted the president a virtual declaration of war for an historically unprecedented "pre-emptive war," but did so without raising any questions about the whys, the evidence, the costs, or long term implications for the nation -- and for the world -- of such an unprovoked invasion.

Only a democratic society accustomed to war -- and predisposed to the use of war and violence -- would accept war so quickly, without asking any questions or demanding any answers from its leaders about the war.

And only the opposition of the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese finally forced some Americans to raise questions about what was actually being planned. This, coupled with the anti-war demonstrations on February 15th, 2003 by millions of people in 350 cities around the globe, delayed President Bush from actually launching this war against Iraq by mid-February 2003.

Nothing, however, seemed to stop the bush administration's drive for war. Nor did the failure of American diplomatic efforts to get authorization from the United Nations' security council seem to bother the members of the congress, virtually all of whom remained silent or in support of war. The incessant polls showed that a majority of the american population continued to support a preemptive war even as -- or perhaps because of -- increasingly angry objections were voiced by important longterm allies and antiwar demonstrators all over the world.

The reality untaught in American schools and textbooks is that war -- whether on a large or small scale -- and domestic violence have been pervasive in American life and culture from this country's earliest days almost 400 years ago. Violence, in varying forms, according to the leading historian of the subject, Richard Maxwell Brown, "has accompanied virtually every stage and aspect of our national experience," and is "part of our unacknowledged (underground) value structure." Indeed, "repeated episodes of violence going far back into our colonial past, have imprinted upon our citizens a propensity to violence."

Thus, America demonstrated a national predilection for war and domestic violence long before the 9/11 attacks, but its leaders and intellectuals through most of the last century cultivated the national self-image, a myth, of America as a moral, "peace-loving" nation which the American population seems unquestioningly to have embraced.

Despite the national, peace-loving self-image, American patriotism has usually been expressed in military and even militaristic terms. No less than seven presidents owed their election chiefly to their military careers (George Washington, 1789, Andrew Jackson,1828, William Henry Harrison, 1840, Zachary Taylor,1848, Ulysses S. Grant,1868, Theodore Roosevelt,1898, and Dwight David Eisenhower, 1952) while others, Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, for example, capitalized upon their military records to become presidents, and countless others at both federal and state levels made a great deal of their war or military records.

Starting with President Woodrow Wilson early in the 20th century, national leaders began to use moralistic rhetoric when they took the nation to war. They assured Americans that the nation's singular mission in the world required the nation to go to war, but that when it went to war, America only did what was morally right.

Secretary of State John Hay, in 1898, lauded the Spanish-American War as a "splendid little war." Commentators have touted World War II as the good war and those who fought in it, "The Best American Generation," and President George Bush, as he was about to launch a War against Iraq on January 29, 1991, asserted: "We are Americans; we have a unique responsibility to do the hard work of freedom. And when we do, freedom works."

This is not to suggest that all American wars have been fought for base motives, cloaked by self-serving moralistic rhetoric, but rather that Americans have little genuine understanding of the major role played by war throughout the American experience.

Historians, however, are well aware that war taught Americans how to fight, helped unite the diverse American population, and helped stimulate the national economy, among other significant things. But this is not the message that they have presented to the American people, concerned perhaps they might undermine Americans' self-image.

Just how frequent war has been, and how central wars have been to the evolution of the United States, only becomes clear when you start to make a list.

American wars begin with the first Indian attack in 1622 in Jamestown, Virginia, followed by the Pequot War in New England in 1635-36, and King Philips' War, in 1675-76, which resulted in the destruction of almost half the towns in Massachusetts. Other wars and skirmishes with Native American Indians would follow until 1900.

There were four major imperial wars between 1689 and 1763 involving England and its North American colonies and the French (and their Native American Indian allies), Spanish, and Dutch empires. During roughly the same years, 1641 to 1759, there were 18 settler outbreaks, five rising to the level of major insurrections (such as Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, 1676-1677, Leisler's Rebellion in New York, 1689-1692, and Coode's Rebellion in Maryland, 1689-1692), and 40 riots.

Americans gained their independence from England and boundaries out to the Mississippi River, as a consequence of the Revolutionary War.

The second war against England, 1812-1815, reinforced our independence, while 40 wars with the Native American Indians between the 1622 and 1900 resulted in millions upon millions of acres of land being added to the national domain.

In 1848, the entire southwest, including California, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Utah and Wyoming, was obtained through war with Mexico. The Civil War between 1861 and 1865 was simply the bloodiest war in American history.

America's overseas empire began with the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection (1898-1902) by which the U.S. gained control of the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico.

Then, there were World Wars I and II, the Korean Police Action (1949 - 1952), and the longest -- and most expensive war -- in American history, the Vietnam War between 1959 and 1975.

Meanwhile, between 1789 and 1945, there were at least 200 presidentially directed military actions all over the globe. Among other places, these military actions involved the shelling of Indochina in 1849 and the U.S. military occupation of virtually every Caribbean and Central-American country between 1904 and 1934. Indeed, in his effort to justify U.S. military intervention in Cuba against Fidel Castro, on September 17, 1962, Secretary of State Dean Rusk presented a list to a U.S. Senate Hearing of all of these 200 plus "precedents" (now called "low intensity conflicts") from 1789 to 1960.

During the Cold War between 1945 and 1989, the U.S. waged war, directly or through surrogates, openly and covertly, from military bases all over the world.

After the Cold War ended in 1989, other important military actions have been undertaken, such as the Gulf War (January and February 1991 in Iraq), in the former Yugoslavia (in 1999), and the 2001 war against the Taliban government and international terrorists in Afghanistan and the Philippines in 2003. To this roster, we must add the 2003 war against Iraq, to be followed, perhaps, by one with North Korea, which has lately brandished its nuclear weapons and missiles.

American historians have avidly studied war, especially the Civil War and World War II, but their focus has almost always been on war causation, battles, generalship, battlefield tactics and strategy, and so on. Overlooked, for the most part, are the general and specific effects of war upon American cultural life; the possible connections between war and civilian violence is still largely unexplored territory. Has war directly or indirectly encouraged an American predisposition toward aggressiveness and the use of violence or was it the reverse?

This question has never been satisfactorily investigated by American historians or other scholars. Yet, the overwhelming majority of historians have always known that America was -- and is -- a violent country. But they have said very little about it, depriving the population of a realistic understanding about this important aspect of their national culture. This omission is most clearly observable in U.S. history textbooks used in high schools, colleges and universities, on the one hand, and popular histories derived from these texts, on the other, which have never devoted serious attention to the topic of the violence in America, let alone sought to explain it.

Consequently, there seems little genuine understanding about the centrality of violence in American life and history.

The overwhelming majority of American historians have not studied, written about, or discussed America's "high violence" environment, not because of a lack of hard information or knowledge about the frequent and widespread use of violence, but because of an unwillingness to confront the reality that violence and American culture are inextricably intertwined.

Many prominent historians recognized this years ago.

In the introduction to his 1970 collection of primary documents, "American Violence: A Documentary History," two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Richard Hofstadter wrote: "What is impressive to one who begins to learn about American violence is its extraordinary frequency, its sheer commonplaceness in our history, its persistence into very recent and contemporary times, and its rather abrupt contrast with our pretensions to singular national virtue." Indeed, Hofstadter wrote the "legacy" of the violent 1960s would be a commitment by historians systematically to study American violence.

But most American historians have studiously avoided the topic or somehow clouded the issue. In 1993, in his magisterial study, "The History of Crime and Punishment in America," for example, Stanford University Historian Lawrence Friedman devoted a chapter to the many forms of American violence. Then, in a very revealing chapter conclusion, Friedman wrote: "American violence must come from somewhere deep in the American personality ... [it] cannot be accidental; nor can it be genetic. The specific facts of American life made it what it is ... crime has been perhaps a part of the price of liberty ... [but] American violence is still a historical puzzle." Precisely what is it that historians are unwilling to discuss? Basically, there are three forms of American violence: mob violence, interpersonal violence, and war.

What is the extent of mob violence?

Indiana University Historian Paul Gilje, in his 1997 book, "Rioting in America," stated there were at least 4,000 riots between the early 1600s and 1992. Gilje asserted that "without an understanding of the impact of rioting we cannot fully comprehend the history of the American people."

This is a position that director Martin Scorsese just made his own in the film, "Gangs of New York," which focuses on the July 1863 Draft Act Riots in New York City as the historical pivot around which America's urban experience revolved. However, occasional gory movie depictions of violent riots, or Civil War battles, as in "Gods and Generals," provide little real understanding of a nation's history.

M.I.T. Historian Robert Fogelson, in his 1971 book, "Violence as Protest: a Study of Riots and Ghettos," concluded that "for three and a half centuries Americans have resorted to violence in order to reach goals otherwise unattainable ... indeed, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the native white majority has rioted in some way and at some time against every minority group in America and yet Americans regard rioting not only as illegitimate but, even more significant, as aberrant."

Part of the fascination with group violence is the spectacle of mob rampages. But for historians there is more; group violence is viewed as a "response" to changing economic, political, social, cultural, demographic or religious conditions. Thus, however violent the episodes were, historians could see larger "reasons" for these group behaviors; somehow, these actions reflected a "cause."

(This might be likened to the way many American historians still view the southern secession movement and Civil War. Seeking to maintain their institution of human slavery, southerners started the bloodiest war in American history which almost destroyed the union. But because they claimed to be fighting for their "freedom," historians have treated their action as a legitimate cause, whereas in other nations such action is ordinarily viewed as treason).

Now, to the nitty-gritty: How many victims did riots and collective violence claim over the 400-year American historical experience?

This can never accurately be known, considering it includes official and unofficial violence against Native American Indians, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asians and untold riots, vigilante actions and lynchings, among other things.

But a conservative guesstimate of, perhaps, about 2,000,000 deaths and serious injuries between 1607 and 2001 (or about 5,063 each and every year for 395 years) seems a reasonable -- and quite conservative -- number for analytical purposes, until more precise statistics are available.

At least 753,000 Native American Indians were the intended victims of warfare and genocide between 1622 and 1900 in what is now the United States of America, according to one scholar. The number for African-Americans might equal or exceed the estimate for the Indians, 750,000.

The total number of deaths for all other forms of collective violence seems well under 20,000. The greatest American riot, the New York City Draft Act riots of July 1863, resulted in between 105 and 150 deaths, while the major 1960s riots (Watts, Los Angeles, Newark, N.J., and Detroit, Mich., accounted for a total of 103 deaths, and the 1992 Los Angeles riot claimed 60 lives. The estimate of deaths from the 326 vigilante episodes is between 750 and 1,000. Approximately 5,000 individuals were known to have been lynched between 1882 and 1968, and about 2,000 more killed in labor-management violence.

Horrendous as this sounds -- and it is horrendous -- this 2,000,000 figure pales when compared to the major form of American violence which historians have routinely ignored until very recently. Historians of violence have largely ignored individual interpersonal violence, which, in sharp contrast to group violence, is very frequent, sometimes very personal -- and far deadlier than group violence.

In 1997, two distinguished legal scholars, Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, compared crime rates in the G-7 countries (Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States) between the 1960s and 1990s in their book, "Crime Is Not The Problem: Lethal Violence In America Is." Bluntly, they stated their conclusion: "What is striking about the quantity of lethal violence in the United States is that it is a third-world phenomenon occurring in a first-world nation."

Instances of personal violence include but are not limited to barroom brawls, quarrels between acquaintances, business associates, lovers or sexual rivals, family members, or during the commission of a robbery, mugging, or other crime.

How does the carnage in this category contrast with the 2,000,000 victims of group violence between 1607 and 2001?

During the 20th century alone, well over 10 million Americans were victims of violent crimes -- and 10 percent of them -- or 1,089,616 -- were murdered between 1900 and 1997. The "total" number of "officially reported" homicides, aggravated assaults, robberies and rapes between 1937 and 1970 was 9,816,646, but these were undercounts!

Every year during the 20th century at least 10 percent of the crimes committed have been violent crimes -- homicides, aggravated assaults, forcible rapes and robberies. Between 1900 and 1997, there were 1,089,616 homicides. How were they murdered? 375,350 by firearms and the rest were due to other means, including beating, strangling, stabbing and cutting, drowning, poisoning, burning and axing.

Between 1900 and 1971, 596,984 Americans were murdered. Between 1971 and 1997, there were another 592,616 killed in similar ways.

More Americans were killed by other Americans during the 20th century than died in the Spanish-American war (11,000 "deaths in service"), World War I (116,000 "deaths in service"), World War II (406,000 "deaths in service"), the Korean police action (55,000 "deaths in service"), and the Vietnam War (109,000 "deaths in service") combined. ("Deaths in Service" statistics are greater than combat deaths and were used here to make the contrast between war and civilian interpersonal violence rates even clearer.)

So, what accounts for the American ability to overlook collective violence, interpersonal violence, and war?

The explanation lies, first, with historians' abdication of responsibility systematically to deal with the issue of violence in America ... and, second, with the American population's refusal directly to confront any very ugly reality -- which came first I do not know. This is what historians refer to as " mutual causation."

There are, of course, several factors that have enabled Americans to overlook their violent past. Many of these were actually defined by Richard Hofstadter in his 1970 introduction to "American Violence: A Documentary History." First, Americans have been told by historians that they are a "latter-day chosen people" with a providential exemption from the woes that plagued all other human societies. Historians of the 1950s had not denied that America's past was replete with violence; they just preferred during the Cold War to emphasize a more positive vision of America. Historians refer to this as the "myth of innocence" or the "myth of the new world Eden."

In an open, free, democratic society, graced with an abundance of natural resources, and without the residue of repressive European institutions, virtually any white person who worked hard had the opportunity to achieve the "American Dream" of material success and respectability.

Violence, especially political violence when it erupted, was dismissed out of hand as somehow "un-American," an unfortunate by-product of temporary racial, ethnic, religious and industrial conflicts.

Second, American violence had not been a major issue for federal, state or local officials because it was rarely directed against them; it was rarely revolutionary violence. Rather, American violence has almost always been citizen-against-citizen, white against black, white against Indian, Protestant against Catholic or Mormon, Catholic against Protestant, white against Asian or Hispanic.

The lack of a violent revolutionary tradition in America is the principal reason why Americans have never been disarmed, while in every European nation the reverse is true.

So, for the most part, Americans, laymen and historians alike, have been able to practice what some historians have termed "selective" recollection or "historical amnesia" about the violence in their past and present. Since the 1960s, historians' works, cumulatively, have demonstrated a causal connection between American culture and the American predisposition to use violence. We might now be experiencing yet another by-product of this national penchant for violence -- a willingness to engage in a major war without asking very many hard questions. It's the American Way.

[moeen yaseen]

ANALYZING THE PANDEMIC OF GLOBAL AMERICAN HATRED

Jessica Long
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17198.htm

I’m American….Shhh!! Don’t tell!

Alright, alright!! The secret is out….. I am, regrettably, not Canadian. In fact, I am an American from a small city called Olympia, WA about three hours south of the Canadian border. But shhh…. Don’t tell! Perhaps if you knew the grief these three hours distance have caused me the last six years you wouldn’t judge me so harshly for this little white lie.

I represent the 7% of Americans that travel abroad each year. Ordinarily, I would be proud to belong to this statistic. Yet having done the majority of my globetrotting during the Bush Administration years, I find my nationality to be the biggest cause of stress in my travels. I have learned that being an American is something you can no longer be proud of- well, at least if you have any knowledge of global affairs. In fact I am ashamed of my nationality. But wait a second here…. before I am accosted by the headstrong patriot with ten “United we stand” bumper stickers adorning his SUV, let me say this: I understand the value of pride in opportunity, equality and justice- but NOT in nationalism for the sake of nationalism! And that is what is at stake here: American insular ideology. Traveling abroad has allowed me a new perspective on this skewed American self-image. I am grateful for my opportunities, my freedom, and my standard of living- but I am ashamed of my government’s corruption, my people’s ignorance and my nation’s neo-colonial egotism. But you needn’t be a hardcore lefty to agree with me. All you need is to go abroad to be reminded of the global hatred toward our nation.

Not only is it not safe to be an American abroad, it is not tolerated! The majority of Americans I meet while traveling admit to the same lie as I do: “I am, uh… Canadian.” We deny our nationality to avoid the scowls, jeers, lectures, and sometimes violence from other foreigners. In the last six years, I have traveled to Africa twice, backpacked Southeast Asia and Central America and lived a brief time in Europe for a total of 12 different countries. Above all, one thing has been made very clear to me: The world hates us. And if the whole world hates our country, don’t you suppose we ought to figure out why? According to radio talk show host and best-selling author Michael Medved, global American hatred stems from “their” jealousy, “their” anti-capitalist agendas and “their” contempt for our “toxic pop culture.” Okay, that explains the sentiments of Islamic extremists, French idealists and Latin American Marxists- but what of the rest of the world? Medved admits that “American hatred has reached pandemic proportions” extending to the “corners of the globe.” Can jealousy and communism really be that contagious? Not when you look at western Europe, whose standards of living are fueled by their capitalist endeavors…..so why?

A survey performed by the Pew Research Center and cited in The Economist challenges Medved’s perceived reasons for American hatred. The study found that The Netherlands, Spain, China and Germany were the top four nations who viewed America unfavorably. With the exception of China, these anti-American countries are NOT economically struggling, culturally conservative or lenient toward Communism. So can we truly blame envy, Marxism and pop culture? The standard of living in The Netherlands, Spain and Germany are of the highest in Europe. They are also considered culturally liberal in their perception of foreign “pop culture” and are not known for their anti-capitalist motives. In Britain and Canada, a little under half of the population views American unfavorably. This is alarmingly high given these are two of our largest allies. The study did find that India and Poland liked us though! Oh….but wait! This can be explained. From 1947-91, India went through a period of Socialism and Economic isolation fueled by anti-capitalist and anti-American thinking. An article in The Futurist suggests that it was the failures of the Indian economy, coupled with the fact that Indian-Americans are the wealthiest ethnic demographic in the U.S., that lead them to turn against socialist endeavors and embrace American ideals. Similarly, Poland and Russia, who also favor America, do so because of their lack of faith in the communist system which fell in 1991. Given the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we know why some like us. But not why the rest hate us. Why the hate? Believe it or not, we can’t entirely blame the Bush administration for this one either. Rather, we must blame the insular ideology that isolates the American citizen from the rest of the world: Americans don’t travel. American’s don’t know. And still worse, Americans don’t care. We claim to run the world, while statistics show that we know very little, if anything, about it.

According to the European Travel Commission, only 18% of Americans own passports. This does not take into account the number of newly naturalized citizens either. When we compare this statistic to 41% of Canadian citizens who own passports, the U.S. appears much more culturally secluded than our northern brothers. Furthermore, three times the number of Australians own passports than Americans. Thus we cannot blame our lack of travel and global interest on our geographic size or location. We do not travel because our insular ideology implies there is no need. It is a deeply rooted American creed that “we are the best country in the world” and “innately right,” if not “saviors,” in all global action. Based on this mentality, there is little need or interest to learn about other countries. In 2006, a survey commissioned by National Geographic found that 85% of young Americans (ages 18-24) could not locate Iraq or Israel on a map. 90% could not locate Afghanistan. 75% of Americans cannot locate Thailand on a map, even after the highly publicized tsunami of 2004.

In 2002, a different geographic survey was given out to the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and Great Britain. American citizens performed the worst with the exception of Mexico who scored only slightly lower. This is not just a reflection of our education system- it is a reflection of our ideology. How so? Because only 30% of Americans think it is important to know the location of countries in the news. What do these statistics say to the rest of the world? Simply, that while Americans have no problem in attempting to run the world, we have little experience in how it works. It is on this ignorance that we justify our wars, trade relations and political action in a rapidly globalizing world. Aside from being fat and loud, the dangers of the American stereotype lie in the fact we are viewed as being simultaneously globally ignorant and culturally egocentric. This is our downfall.

Douglas Richardson, executive director of the Association of American Geographers in Washington, D.C. agrees that geographic knowledge is crucial for functioning in a rapidly globalizing world.

Remember the fall of Rome? I am not suggesting a similar fate but merely suggesting that Americans should be aware of their insular ideology as we stand pitted against the peoples of the world in a global showdown. We must partake in the global arena as knowledgeable, cultured and open-minded individuals if we are to preserve any form of international decency we may have left. If not, be prepared to raise an apologetic, timid generation who looks down in same every time they say, “I am an American.”

[moeen yaseen]

YOU AND I AND THE NEXT WAR
Uri Avnery
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17196.htm

"WE ARE ready for the next war," a reserve soldier in the Israel Defense Forces told a TV reporter this week, on the scene of a brigade-size maneuver on the Golan Heights.

What war? Against whom? About what? This was not stated, and not even asked. The soldier saw it as self-evident that war will break out soon, and it seems that he did not particularly care against whom.

Politicians are used to expressing themselves more cautiously, in words like "If, God forbid, a war should break out" But in Israeli public discourse, the next war is seen as a natural phenomenon, like tomorrow's sunrise. Of course, war will break out. The only question is against whom.

AND INDEED--against whom? Perhaps Hizbullah again?

Quite possibly. In the Knesset and the media, a lively debate took place this week about whether Hizbullah has already regained all the capabilities it had before the Second Lebanon War, or not yet. In a Knesset committee, there was an altercation between one of the Army Intelligence chiefs, who vigorously insisted that this was so, and the Minister of Defense, who voiced his opinion that Hizbullah has only the "potential" to get there.

Hassan Nasrallah, who has a wonderful talent for driving Israelis up the wall, poured oil on the flames by announcing, in a public speech, that arms were flowing to him from Syria, and that he transfers them to the south in trucks "covered with straw". Let them all know.

Our commentators reacted by declaring that "no later than this summer" the Israeli army will be compelled to attack in Lebanon in order to remove the danger, and, on this occasion, also to eradicate the shame and restore to the army the "deterrent power" that was lost on the battlefields of that unfortunate war.

OR PERHAPS Syria, this time?

That is also possible. After all, this week's brigade maneuver, the first for a long time, was held on the Golan and obviously directed against Damascus.

True, the Syrians have offered peace. They are going out of their way to tempt Israel to start negotiations.

But that is out of the question. President Bush has forbidden Israel to take even the tiniest step in that direction. Bush is threatening Syria with war (see below) and it is unthinkable that Israel, the loyal camp-follower, would make peace with somebody America does not like. No, peace with Syria is not on the cards. Forget it.

And, as the Romans did not say: "si non vis pacem, para bellum"--if you do not want peace, prepare for war.

Preparations go well beyond training the forces on the ground. They also have a psychological dimension. The day before yesterday, an extra-large front page headline in Haaretz announced: "Syrian Arms Race With the Help of Iran". The other media followed suit. It was said that Russia was supplying Syria with huge quantities of anti-tank weapons, of the kind that penetrated even the most advanced Israeli tanks in the recent war. And, as if that was not enough, Russia is also providing Syria with anti-shipping missiles that would be a real threat to our navy, and long-range missiles that can reach every corner of Israel.

The news story puts together three countries--Syria, Russia and Iran--which are, quite fortuitously, the three members of Bush's new "axis of evil".

Clearly, this media campaign is being orchestrated by the army chiefs and is connected with the maneuver. As a matter of fact, it is the first action by the new Chief-of-Staff, Gaby Ashkenazi, who observed the maneuver in the company of the Minister of Defense, Amir Peretz. (A quick-witted photographer caught Peretz viewing the action through binoculars. But the lens caps were still on, and so he obviously saw nothing but black.)

Truth is that no danger lurks in that direction. There is not the slightest possibility that Syria would attack Israel. The military capabilities of Syria, even with all the Russian arms they may get, are vastly inferior to those of the Israeli army. That is the considered view of the entire Israeli intelligence community. If Syria rearms, it is for defensive purposes. They are, quite justly, afraid of Israel and the United States.

But if one wants war, what does that matter?

AND PERHAPS these are simply diversionary tactics, in order to shift attention away from the real target of the next war--Iran?

For many months now, our media have been voicing dark warnings about Iran almost daily. Within a few years they are going to have the capability to carry out a "Second Holocaust", as well as the will to do so. The picture is of a crazy country, headed by a Second Hitler, who is prepared to have Iran annihilated if this is the price of wiping Israel off the map.

Against such an enemy, of course, the old Hebrew adage applies: "He who gets up to kill you, go and kill him first."


AFTER THE Six-Day War, a pacifist satire bore the title: "You and I and the Next War". ("You" in the feminine form.) Perhaps it should be revived now.

During the last few days, a very large ad appeared in the newspapers, signed by a group calling itself "The Reserve Soldiers" and claiming to represent the disappointed reservists of the last war. The ad sets out all the reasons for removing Olmert from power, and reaches its climax with the dire warning: "He will remain on his chair and direct the next war."

Perhaps that is exactly what he has in mind. We never had a prime minister mired so deeply in a quagmire of troubles. In a few weeks, the Commission of Inquiry of the Second Lebanon War will publish its findings. True, it was Olmert himself who appointed the commission and handpicked its members, in order to avoid falling into the hands of a judicial board of inquiry, whose members would have been appointed by the Supreme Court, and who might have been much less considerate. But even so, he may survive the findings of the commission only by the skin of his teeth. At the same time, several corruption allegations against him are being investigated by the police.

True, Olmert succeeded last week in appointing new police chiefs (including a personal friend) as well as a new Minister of Justice to his liking, but this also does not guarantee him full immunity.

In the meantime he only exemplifies an old truth: a clever person knows how to extricate himself from a trap that a wise person would not have fallen into in the first place.

He has no agenda. He said so himself. He is the chief of an amorphous party, without members or institutions and without real roots in the community. Public opinion polls show that his ratings are nearing the bottom (only the Minister of Defense has sunk even lower.) Olmert remains in power only because many believe that all the available alternatives would be even worse.

A cynical Prime Minister, entrapped in such a situation, could easily be tempted to start another military adventure, in the hope that it would give him back his lost popularity and divert attention from his private and political troubles. If this is the aim, it really does not matter much against whom--Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians or Iranians. The main thing is that it should happen as soon as possibly, preferably this summer at the latest. What remains is to convince the public of the presence of an existential danger, but in our country that is not too difficult.

ALL THIS reminds one, of course, of another outstanding leader--George W. Bush. Amazing how these two find themselves in almost the same situation.

The American political system is admired by many in Israel, and from time to time the cry goes up that it should be adopted by us, too. A strong leader, elected fairly directly by the people, who appoints competent ministers--what could be better?

But it seems that the American system has created a terrifying situation: President Bush has two more years in office--and in this time he can start any war at will, even though now the American public has clearly shown in the congressional elections that it loathes the Iraq war. As Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military forces in the world, he can widen and deepen the war in Iraq, and at the same time start a new war against Iran or Syria.

The two houses of Congress can, in theory, stop him by cutting the allocations for the armed forces, but most of the members of these two august bodies are windbags who are terrified out of their wits (if they have any) by the very thought. Any marine in Baghdad has more guts than the whole bunch of Senators and Congressmen together. They would not even dream of impeaching the President.

Thus, one single person can cause a world-wide catastrophe. He has no brakes, but has a strong drive towards war: to fulfill his "vision" (dictated to him by God Himself in private conversation) and to retouch his image in history.

Is this practical? Well, the American army is too small to conduct another major war on the ground. But Bush and his advisors believe that there is no need for that. They are the successors to the American general who in his time talked about "bombing Vietnam back to the stone age". After all, it worked in Serbia and Afghanistan.

The neo-cons, who still reign supreme in Washington, are convinced that a rain of many hundreds of smart bombs on all the nuclear, military, governmental and public installations in Iran could "do the job". Their friends in Israel will applaud, since that would relieve Israel of the need to do something similar, if on a smaller scale.

But an American and/or Israeli adventure would be a disaster. Bombs can devastate a country, but not a people like the Iranians. Only the wildest imagination can foresee how the more than a billion Muslims in scores of countries--including all our neighbors--would react to the destruction of a Muslim country (even a Shiite one). This is playing with fire, which may start a world-wide conflagration.

Bush and Olmert and the Next War: HELP!

[moeen yaseen]

TUESDAY's MARKET MELTDOWN; GREENSPAN's "INVISIBLE HAND"

Mike Whitney
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17214.htm

Yesterday’s stock market freefall has Greenspan’s bloody fingerprints all over it. And, no, I’m not talking about Sir Alan’s crystal ball predictions about the impending recession; that’s just more of his same circuitous blather. The real issue is the Fed’s suicidal policies of low interest rates and currency deregulation which have paved the way for economic Armageddon. Whether the Chinese stock market contagion persists or not is immaterial; the American economy is headed for the dumpster and it’s all because of the wizened former fed-chief, Alan “Great Depression” Greenspan.

So, what does the stumbling Chinese stock market have to do with Greenspan?

Greenspan was the driving force behind deregulation which keeps the greenback floating freely while the Chinese and Japanese manipulate their currencies. This gives their industries a competitive advantage by allowing them to consistently underbid their foreign rivals. Big business loves this idea, because it offers cheaper sources of labor and allows them to maximize their profits. It’s been a disaster for Americans though, who’ve seen their good paying jobs increasingly outsourced while US manufacturing plants are dismantled and air-mailed to the Far East.

Greenspan has been the biggest champion of deregulation; it’s another way he pays tribute to the Golden Calf of “free trade", the god of personal accumulation.

Yesterday, the Chinese got whacked with their own stick. By keeping the value of their currency down, they spawned a wave of speculation which inflated their stock market by 140% in one year. When the government threatened to tighten up interest rates the stock market went into a nosedive and the overall index got a 9% haircut in a matter of hours. If they had been playing by the “free market” rules, rather than pegging their currency to artificially cheap greenbacks they could have avoided inflating their stock market.

As it happens, the rumblings in the Chinese market sent tremors through the global system and triggered a 416 point loss on Wall Street; the biggest one day slide since 9-11. Now the world is watching nervously to see if the markets can recuperate or if this is just the beginning of America’s great economic unwinding.

Wednesday’s revised numbers of GDP are not encouraging. The Commerce Dept revised their original data from a robust 3.5% GDP to a paltry 2.2. The economy is shrinking faster than anyone had anticipated. Also, durable goods plummeted beyond expectations and the real estate market continues to swoon. Troubles in the sub-prime market are spreading to non traditional loans as more and more over-leveraged homeowners are unable to make their monthly mortgage payments. (By the end of December 24 sub-prime mortgage lenders had already gone belly-up) Greenspan’s empire of debt is bound to come under greater and greater pressure as volatility increases.

On Monday, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported a 3% jump in the sales of existing homes, but it was all hogwash. The housing industry has joined the media in trying to conceal what’s really going on by showering the public with cheery talk of a recovery. Don’t believe it. Go to their website and you’ll see that “year over year” January sales were down by a whopping 290,000 homes. Add that tidbit to “new home sales” (announced today) which “fell by 16.6%, the most since 1994” (Bloomberg) and you get bird’s-eye-view of an industry teetering on the brink of collapse.

Greenspan pumped the housing bubble so full of helium; we’ll be feeling the back-draft for a decade or more. Still, the gnomish ex Fed-master had the audacity to stand in front of the cameras and say, “We have not had any major, significant spillover effects on the American economy from the contraction in housing.”

Really?

Apparently, Greenspan hasn’t taken note of the skyrocketing rate of foreclosures or the growing number of people on public assistance. It’s doubtful that one notices the struggles of the working stiff from their manicured sanctuary in the Aspen foothills.

It’s not just the housing market that’s buckling from the expansion of debt, but the stock market as well. The Associated Press reported last week that, “Investors are borrowing at a record pace to sink into the stock market, and the trend is raising concerns on Wall Street about what might happen if a major correction occurs….The amount of margin debt, which is how brokers define this kind of borrowing, hit a record $285.6 billion in January on the New York Stock Exchange. Such a robust appetite, amid a backdrop of complacent market conditions, could leave investors badly exposed if major indexes are snagged by a market decline. Some could find themselves forced to sell stock or other assets to meet what’s known as a margin call, when a broker effectively calls in the loan".

That last time margin debt was this high was at the height of the dot.com bubble in March 2000. We all know how that turned out; the bubble burst taking with it $7 trillion in savings and retirement from working class Americans.

It all could have been avoided if there were prudent and enforceable regulations on margin debt. Of course, that would have been a violation of the central tenet of free market exploitation: “There shall be no law inhibiting the unscrupulous ripping-off of the American people”.

Margin debt is a red flag that the market is over-inflated by speculation. When the market hits a speed-bump like yesterday the fall is steeper than normal, because panicky, over-leveraged investors start scampering for the exits. This probably explains much of what happened on Wall Street after the sudden decline in the Chinese market.

The problems facing the stock market will soon play out whether or not we recover from this “dress rehearsal”for disaster. America’s huge account imbalances and the massive expansion of personal (mortgage) debt ensure that there’s more trouble ahead.

The real problem is deep, systemic and difficult to understand. It relates to basic monetary policy which has been tragically mishandled by the Federal Reserve. A healthy economy requires that money supply not exceed the growth of real GDP; otherwise inflation will ensue. The Fed has been cranking up the money supply at a rate of over 11% for the last 6 years ensuring that we will eventually face a cycle of agonizing hyper-inflation.

More worrisome is the fact that the world is about to face a global liquidity crisis for which there is no easy solution. See, the Fed loans money to the banks by buying government debt. Then, the banks, through the magic of “fractional banking”, are then able to multiply the amount of money they loan out to their customers. In other words, the loans exceed the amount of the reserves by a considerable margin.

Grasping the magnitude of this phenomenon is the only way to appreciate the storm that lies ahead. This excerpt may shed some light on the issue:

“In the 1970s the reserve requirements on deposits started to fall with the emergence of money market funds, which require no reserves. Then in the early 1990s, reserve requirements were dropped to zero on savings deposits, CDs, and Eurocurrency deposits. At present, reserve requirements apply only to "transactions deposits" - essentially checking accounts. THE VAST MAJORITY OF FUNDING SOURCES USED BT PRIVATE BANKS TO CREATE LOANS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BANK RESERVES AND IN EFFECT CREATE WHAT IS KNOWN AS “MORAL HAZARD” AND SPECULATIVE BUBBLE ECONOMIES.

Consumer loans are made using savings deposits which are not subject to reserve requirements. These loans can be bunched into securities and sold to somebody else, taking them off of the bank's books.

THE POINT IS SIMPLE. COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND CONSUMER LOANS NO LONGER HAVE ANY LINK TO BANK RESERVES. SINCE 1995, THE VOLUME OF SUCH LOANS HAS EXPLODED, WHILE BANK RESERVES HAVE DECLINED.” (Wickipedia)

That’s why we should not be surprised when we discover that, although there are currently $3.5 trillion in bank deposits in the USA, the actual reserves are about $40 billion.

This system works fairly well unless there’s a major market meltdown or a run on the banks, in which case people will quickly find that there are, in fact, no reserves. Even this would not be a concern if the Fed had not increased the money supply by leaps and bounds while, at the same time, fueling the housing bubble through obscenely low interest rates. Now, millions of homeowners will be facing default on their loans, the banks will be stretched to the max, and the stock market will begin to falter.

Something’s gotta give.

Last week, in Davos, Switzerland, German banker, Max Weber, warned the G-8 Summit, “If you misprice risk, don't come looking to us for liquidity assistance. The longer this goes on and the more risky positions are built up over time, the more luck you need… It is time for financial market to move back to more adequate risk pricing and maybe forego a deal even if it looks tempting… Global liquidity will dry up and when that point comes some of this underpricing of risk will normalize. If there is much less liquidity around, people will not go into such high risk.”

It is unlikely that Weber’s advice will be heeded. The United States has grown addicted to “cheap money” and ever-expanding debt. The Federal Reserve will keep greasing the printing presses and diddling the interest rates until someone takes away the punch bowl and the party comes to an end.

There’ve been plenty of warnings, but they’ve all been brushed aside with equal disdain. In a recent article on Counterpunch.org, (“Lame Duck”) Alexander Cockburn refers to a report published by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) “a body set up under the purview of the British Treasury to monitor financial markets and protect the public interest by raising the alarm about shady practices and any dangerous slides towards instability.”

The report “Private Equity: A Discussion of Risk and Regulatory Engagement” states clearly:

“Excessive leverage: The amount of credit that lenders are willing to extend on private equity transactions has risen substantially. This lending may not, in some circumstances, be entirely prudent. Given current levels and recent developments in the economic/credit cycle, the default of a large private equity backed company or a cluster of smaller private equity backed companies seems inevitable. This has negative implications for lenders, purchasers of the debt, orderly markets and conceivably, in extreme circumstances, financial stability and elements of the UK economy.”

The problem is even worse in the US where personal and mortgage debt has increased by over $7 trillion in the last 6 years! This is not an issue that can be resolved by a meager 10% correction in the stock market. The reaction on Wall Street to the sudden downturn in China demonstrates the fragility of the market and presages greater volatility and retrenchment.

We should expect to see bigger and more destructive market-fluctuations as investors get increasingly skittish over bad economic news and weakness in the dollar. Yesterday’s 400 point somersault is just the first sign that Greenspan’s Goldilocks’ economy is cracking at the seams.

[moeen yaseen]

AMERICANS HAVE LOST THEIR COUNTRY

Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17216.htm

The Bush-Cheney regime is America’s first neoconservative regime. In a few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, and the remains of America’s moral reputation along with the infrastructures of two Muslim countries and countless thousands of Islamic civilians. Plans have been prepared, and forces moved into place, for an attack on a third Islamic country, Iran, and perhaps Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon as well.

This extraordinary aggressiveness toward the US Constitution, international law, and the Islamic world is the work, not of a vast movement, but of a handful of ideologues--principally Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Philip Zelikow, and Attorney General Gonzales. These are the main operatives who have controlled policy. They have been supported by their media shills at the Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox News, New York Times, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and by “scholars” in assorted think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute.

The entirety of their success in miring the United States in what could become permanent conflict in the Middle East is based on the power of propaganda and the big lie.

Initially, the 9/11 attack was blamed on Osama bin Laden, but after an American puppet was installed in Afghanistan, the blame for 9/11 was shifted to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who was said to have weapons of mass destruction that would be used against America. The regime sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to tell the lie to the UN that the Bush-Cheney regime had conclusive proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Having conned the UN, Congress, and the American people, the regime invaded Iraq under totally false pretenses and with totally false expectations. The regime’s occupation of Iraq has failed in a military sense, but the neoconservatives are turning their failure into a strategic advantage. At the beginning of this year President Bush began blaming Iran for America’s embarrassing defeat by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in Iraq.

Bush accuses Iran of arming the Iraqi insurgents, a charge that experts regard as improbable. The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi’ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi’ite. Bush’s accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.

On the basis of this absurd accusation--a pure invention--Bush has ordered a heavy concentration of aircraft carrier attack forces off Iran’s coast, and he has moved US attack planes to Turkish bases and other US bases in countries contingent to Iran.

In testimony before Congress on February 1 of this year, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said that he expected the regime to orchestrate a “head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large.” He said a plausible scenario was “a terrorist act blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran.” He said that the neoconservative propaganda machine was already articulating a “mythical historical narrative” for widening their war against Islam.

Why is the US spending one trillion dollars on wars, the reasons for which are patently false. What is going on?

There are several parts to the answer. Like their forebears among the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks of the communist revolution, and the National Socialists of Hitler’s revolution, neoconservatives believe that they have a monopoly on virtue and the right to impose hegemony on the rest of the world. Neoconservative conquests began in the Middle East because oil and Israel, with which neocons are closely allied, are both in the MIddle East.

The American oil giant, UNOCAL, had plans for an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban were not sufficiently cooperative. The US invasion of Afghanistan was used to install Hamid Karzai, who had been on UNOCAL’s payroll, as puppet prime minister. US neoconservative Zalmay Khalilzad, who also had been on UNOCAL’s payroll, was installed as US ambassador to Afghanistan.

Two years later Khalilzad was appointed US ambassador to Iraq. American oil companies have been given control over the exploitation of Iraq’s oil resources.

The Israeli relationship is perhaps even more important. In 1996 Richard Perle and the usual collection of neocons proposed that all of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East be overthrown. “Israel’s enemies” consist of the Muslim countries not in the hands of US puppets or allies. For decades Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians such that today there is not enough of Palestine left to comprise an independent country. The US and Israeli governments blame Iran, Iraq, and Syria for aiding and abetting Palestinian resistance to Israel’s theft of Palestine.

The Bush-Cheney regime came to power with the plans drawn to attack the remaining independent countries in the Middle East and with neoconservatives in office to implement the plans. However, an excuse was required. Neoconservatives had called for “a new Pearl Harbor,” and 9/11 provided the propaganda event needed in order to stampede the public and Congress into war. Neoconservative Philip Zelikow was put in charge of the 9/11 Commission Report to make certain no uncomfortable facts emerged.

The neoconservatives have had enormous help from the corporate media, from Christian evangelicals, particularly from the “Rapture Evangelicals,” from flag-waving superpatriots, and from the military- industrial complex whose profits have prospered. But the fact remains that the dozen men named in the second paragraph above were able to overthrow the US Constitution and launch military aggression under the guise of a preventive/preemptive “war against terrorism.”

When the American people caught on that the “war on terror” was a cloak for wars of aggression, they put Democrats in control of Congress in order to apply a brake to the regime’s warmongering. However, the Democrats have proven to be impotent to stop the neoconservative drive to wider war and, perhaps, world conflagration.

We are witnessing the triumph of a dozen evil men over American democracy and a free press.

[moeen yaseen]

THE WORDS NONE DARE SAY : NUCLEAR WAR


George Lakoff
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17220.htm

"The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."-Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, April 17, 2006

"The second concern is that if an underground laboratory is deeply buried, that can also confound conventional weapons. But the depth of the Natanz facility - reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground - is not prohibitive. The American GBU-28 weapon - the so-called bunker buster - can pierce about 23 feet of concrete and 100 feet of soil. Unless the cover over the Natanz lab is almost entirely rock, bunker busters should be able to reach it. That said, some chance remains that a single strike would fail." -Michael Levi, New York Times, April 18, 2006


A familiar means of denying a reality is to refuse to use the words that describe that reality. A common form of propaganda is to keep reality from being described.

In such circumstances, silence and euphemism are forms of complicity both in propaganda and in the denial of reality. And the media, as well as the major presidential candidates, are now complicit.

The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" such as the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. On the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.

If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war - a first strike nuclear war.

We don't know what exactly is being planned - conventional GBU-28s or nuclear B61-11s. And that is the point. Discussion needs to be open. Nuclear war is not a minor matter.

The Euphemism

As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bush replied, "All options are on the table." On April 18, the day after the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report on the administration's preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked,

"Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"

He replied,

"All options are on the table."

The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations - without further discussion.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed up the President.

"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference. But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table."

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News, August 14, 2005, said the same.

"For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they want to do ... So I think the president's comment that we won't take anything off the table was entirely appropriate."

But it's not just Republicans. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech in Herzliyah, Israel, echoed Bush.

"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

Although, Edwards has said, when asked about this statement, that he prefers peaceful solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he has nonetheless repeated the "all options on the table" position - making clear that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but without using the fateful words.

Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC dinner in New York, said,

"We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

Translation: Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama, asked on 60 Minutes about using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of his preference for diplomacy by responding, "I think we should keep all options on the table."

Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all say indirectly that they seriously consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but will not engage in a public discussion of what that would mean. That contributes to a general denial, and the press is going along with it by a corresponding refusal to use the words.

If the consequences of nuclear war are not discussed openly, the war may happen without an appreciation of the consequences and without the public having a chance to stop it. Our job is to open that discussion.

Of course, there is a rationale for the euphemism: To scare our adversaries by making them think that we are crazy enough to do what we hint at, while not raising a public outcry. That is what happened in the lead up to the Iraq War, and the disaster of that war tells us why we must have such a discussion about Iran. Presidential candidates go along, not wanting to be thought of as interfering in on-going indirect diplomacy. That may be the conventional wisdom for candidates, but an informed, concerned public must say what candidates are advised not to say.

More Euphemisms

The euphemisms used include "tactical," "small," "mini-," and "low yield" nuclear weapons. "Tactical" contrasts with "strategic"; it refers to tactics, relatively low-level choices made in carrying out an overall strategy, but which don't affect the grand strategy. But the use of any nuclear weapons would be anything but "tactical." It would be a major world event - in Vladimir Putin's words, "lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons," making the use of more powerful nuclear weapons more likely and setting off a new arms race. The use of the word "tactical" operates to lessen their importance, to distract from the fact that their very use would constitute a nuclear war.

What is "low yield"? Perhaps the "smallest" tactical nuclear weapon we have is the B61-11, which has a dial-a-yield feature: it can yield "only" 0.3 kilotons, but can be set to yield up to 170 kilotons. The power of the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. That is, a "small" bomb can yield more than 10 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 dropped from 40,000 feet would dig a hole 20 feet deep and then explode, send shock waves downward, leave a huge crater, and spread radiation widely. The idea that it would explode underground and be harmless to those above ground is false - and, anyway, an underground release of radiation would threaten ground water and aquifers for a long time and over a wide distance.

To use words such as "low yield" or "small" or "mini-" nuclear weapon is like speaking of being a little bit pregnant. Nuclear war is nuclear war! It crosses the moral line.

Any discussion of roadside canister bombs made in Iran justifying an attack on Iran should be put in perspective: Little canister bombs (EFPs - explosively formed projectiles) that shoot a small hot metal ball at a humvee or tank versus nuclear war.

Incidentally, the administration may be focusing on the canister bombs because it seeks to claim that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 permits the use of military force against Iran based on its interference in Iraq. In that case, no further authorization by Congress would be needed for an attack on Iran.

The journalistic point is clear. Journalists and political leaders should not talk about an "attack." They should use the words that describe what is really at stake: nuclear war - in boldface.

Then there is the scale of the proposed attack. Military reports leaking out suggest a huge (mostly or entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as 10,000 targets - a "shock and awe" attack that would destroy Iran's infrastructure the way the U.S. bombing destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. The targets would not just be "military targets." As Dan Plesch reports in the New Statesman, February 19, 2007, such an attack would wipe out Iran's military, business, and political infrastructure. Not just nuclear installations, missile launching sites, tanks, and ammunition dumps, but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communications centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals, public buildings, and even the homes of political leaders. That is what was attacked in Iraq: the "critical infrastructure." It is not just military in the traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble, and leads to death, maiming, disease, joblessness, impoverishment, starvation, mass refugees, lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain and suffering. That is what the options appear to be "on the table." Is nation destruction what the American people have in mind when they acquiesce without discussion to an "attack"? Is nuclear war what the American people have in mind? An informed public must ask and the media must ask. The words must be used.

Even if the attack were limited to nuclear installations, starting a nuclear war with Iran would have terrible consequences - and not just for Iranians. First, it would strengthen the hand of the Islamic fundamentalists - exactly the opposite of the effect U.S. planners would want. It would be viewed as yet another major attack on Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is a revenge culture. If you want to recruit fundamentalist Islamists all over the world to become violent jihadists, this is the best way to do it. America would become a world pariah. Any idea of the U.S. as a peaceful nation would be destroyed. Moreover, you don't work against the spread of nuclear weapons by using those weapons. That will just make countries all over the world want nuclear weaponry all the more. Trying to stop nuclear proliferation through nuclear war is self-defeating.

As Einstein said, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Why would the Bush administration do it? Here is what conservative strategist William Kristol wrote last summer during Israel's war with Hezbollah.

"For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength -- in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions -- and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."

-Willam Kristol, Weekly Standard 7/24/06

"Renewed strength" is just the Bush strategy in Iraq. At a time when the Iraqi people want us to leave, when our national elections show that most Americans want our troops out, when 60% of Iraqis think it all right to kill Americans, Bush wants to escalate. Why? Because he is weak in America. Because he needs to show more "strength." Because if he knocks out the Iranian nuclear facilities, he can claim at least one "victory." Starting a nuclear war with Iran would really put us in a worldwide war with fundamentalist Islam. It would make real the terrorist threat he has been claiming since 9/11. It would create more fear - real fear - in America. And he believes, with much reason, that fear tends to make Americans vote for saber-rattling conservatives.

Kristol's neoconservative view that "weakness is provocative" is echoed in Iran, but by the other side. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted in The New York Times of February 24, 2007 as having "vowed anew to continue enriching uranium, saying, 'If we show weakness in front of the enemies, they will increase their expectations.'" If both sides refuse to back off for fear of showing weakness, then prospects for conflict are real, despite the repeated analyses, like that of The Economist that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be politically and morally impossible. As one unnamed administration official has said (The New York Times, February 24, 2007), "No one has defined where the red line is that we cannot let the Iranians step over."

What we are seeing now is the conservative message machine preparing the country to accept the ideas of a nuclear war and nation destruction against Iran. The technique used is the "slippery slope." It is done by degrees. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water - if the heat is turned up slowly the frog gets used to the heat and eventually boils to death - the American public is getting gradually acclimated to the idea of war with Iran.

* First, describe Iran as evil - part of the axis of evil. An inherently evil person will inevitably do evil things and can't be negotiated with. An entire evil nation is a threat to other nations.
* Second, describe Iran's leader as a "Hitler" who is inherently "evil" and cannot be reasoned with. Refuse to negotiate with him.
* Then repeat the lie that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons - weapons of mass destruction. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says they are at best many years away.
* Call nuclear development "an existential threat" - a threat to our very existence.
* Then suggest a single "surgical" "attack" on Natanz and make it seem acceptable.
* Then find a reason to call the attack "self-defense" - or better protection for our troops from the EFPs, or single-shot canister bombs.
* Claim, without proof and without anyone even taking responsibility for the claim, that the Iranian government at its highest level is supplying deadly weapons to Shiite militias attacking our troops, while not mentioning the fact that Saudi Arabia is helping Sunni insurgents attacking our troops.
* Give "protecting our troops" as a reason for attacking Iran without getting new authorization from Congress. Claim that the old authorization for attacking Iraq implied doing "whatever is necessary to protect our troops" from Iranian intervention in Iraq.
* Argue that de-escalation in Iraq would "bleed" our troops, "weaken" America, and lead to defeat. This sets up escalation as a winning policy, if not in Iraq then in Iran.
* Get the press to go along with each step.
* Never mention the words "preventive nuclear war" or "national destruction." When asked, say, "All options are on the table." Keep the issue of nuclear war and its consequences from being seriously discussed by the national media.
* Intimidate Democratic presidential candidates into agreeing, without using the words, that nuclear war should be "on the table." This makes nuclear war and nation destruction bipartisan and even more acceptable.

Progressives managed to blunt the "surge" idea by telling the truth about "escalation." Nuclear war against Iran and nation destruction constitute the ultimate escalation.

The time has come to stop the attempt to make a nuclear war against Iran palatable to the American public. We do not believe that most Americans want to start a nuclear war or to impose nation destruction on the people of Iran. They might, though, be willing to support a tit-for-tat "surgical" "attack" on Natanz in retaliation for small canister bombs and to end Iran's early nuclear capacity.

It is time for America's journalists and political leaders to put two and two together, and ask the fateful question: Is the Bush administration seriously preparing for nuclear war and nation destruction? If the conventional GBU-28s will do the job, then why not take nuclear war off the table in the name of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons? If GBU-28s won't do the job, then it is all the more important to have that discussion.

This should not be a distraction from Iraq. The general issue is escalation as a policy, both in Iraq and in Iran. They are linked issues, not separate issues. We have learned from Iraq what lack of public scrutiny does.

[moeen yaseen]

THE PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE ARMY
A Review of Chalmers Johnson's Nemesis

Stephen Lendman
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17226.htm

Chalmers Johnson is professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego where he taught for 30 years as well as at UC, Berkeley (where he was educated). At Berkeley, he was chairman of the Center for Chinese Studies and its Department of Political Studies. He's currently president of the Japan Policy Research Institute (JPRI), a not-for-profit research and public affairs organization involved in public education relating to Japan and international relations in the Pacific region. Johnson is also a prolific writer and author of 17 books, numerous articles and various other publications.

From 1967 through 1973, he served as well as a consultant to the Office of National Estimates (ONE) within the CIA, and during the Cold War years was, by his own characterization, a former "spear-carrier for the empire." At least since the age of George Bush, however, Johnson radically transformed himself into one of the nation's sharpest and most important intellectual critics of the current administration having now completed the third and last volume of his "inadvertent trilogy" in his newest book Nemesis that's the subject of this review.

The previous two he refers to are Blowback based on 1953 CIA terminology in the aftermath of the spy agency's first ever engineered overthrow of a foreign leader - democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq ushering in the 26 year tryannical rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi who was himself forcibly ousted in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Volume two was The Sorrows of Empire - Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. Volume three is Nemesis - The Last Days of the American Republic and subject of this review that hopefully will encourage readers to get the book and read the others in Johnson's trilogy to get the full picture of his powerfully vital message.

Combined, the three volumes show how imperial hubris and overreach have undermined the republic. Johnson characterizes it as dealing "with the way arrogant and misguided American policies have headed us for a series of catastrophes comparable to our disgrace and defeat in Vietnam or even to the sort of extinction that befell....the Soviet Union (that he believes is) now unavoidable." In his view, the present state of the nation is dire, and it's "too late for mere scattered reforms of our government or bloated military to make much difference."

Our democracy and way of life are now threatened because of our single-minded pursuit of empire with a well-entrenched militarism driving it that's become so powerful and pervasive it's now an uncontrollable state within the state. History is clear on this teaching we can choose as could all empires before us. We can keep ours and lose our democracy, but we can't have both. Rome made the wrong choice and perished. Britain chose more wisely and survived. We must now choose, and so far the signs are ominous. Our current behavior under all administrations post-WW II requires resources and commitments abroad that in the end, Johnson believes, "will inevitably undercut our domestic democracy and....produce a military dictatorship or its civilian equivalent." We're perilously close already because a hyper-reactionary statist administration hijacked the government and is driving the nation to tyranny and ruin.

The evidence post-9/11 shows it:

-- A nation facing no outside threats permanently at war.

-- Secret torture-prisons around the world with no accountability to which anyone, anywhere for any reason can be sent never to return or receive justice.

-- The most secretive, intrusive and repressive government in our history and a president who's a congenital, serial liar.

-- Social decay at home.

-- An unprecedented wealth disparity and extent of corporate power. Former US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned years ago: "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- A de facto one party state with two wings and a president claiming "unitary executive" powers ignoring the rule of law and doing as he pleases in the name of national security on his say alone.

-- The absence of checks and balances and separation of powers with no restraint on a reckless "boy-emperor" Executive on a "messianic mission."

-- A secret intelligence establishment with near-limitless funding operating without oversight.

-- A dominant corporate-controlled media serving as a national thought-control police and collective quasi-state ministry of information and propaganda glorifying imperial wars to "spread democracy" without letting on they're for conquest, domination and repression.

-- An omnipotent military-industrial complex Dwight Eisenhower couldn't have imagined when he warned us nor could George Washington, to no avail. In his Farewell Address in September, 1796, Washington said: "Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." He meant large standing armies leading to an imperial presidency. They destroy our system of checks and balances and separation of powers and in the end our freedom.

-- A weak, servile Congress acceding to a dominant president under a system of authoritarian rule keeping a restive population in line it fears one day no longer will tolerate being denied essential services so the nation's wealth can go for imperial wars and handouts to the rich.

-- A cesspool of corruption stemming from incestuous ties between government and business mocking any notions of government of, for or by the people.

Johnson points out America is plagued with the same dynamic that doomed other past empires unwilling to change - "isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy" combined with authoritarian rule and loss of personal freedom. Hence, the title of the book - Nemesis, the goddess of vengeance and punisher of hubris and arrogance in Greek mythology. She's already here among us, unseen and patiently stalking our way of life as a free nation awaiting the moment she chooses to make her presence known that won't be pleasant when she does. Johnson compares her to Wagner's Brunnhilde in his opera cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen. Unlike Nemesis, she collects heros, not fools and hypocrites. But she and Nemesis both announce themselves the same way - "Only the doomed see me," even though we'll all feel her presence and suffer her sting.

Our present crisis isn't just from our military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's from growing international anger and revulsion that America is no longer trusted with a president showing contempt for the law including our treaty obligations Article 6 of the Constitution says are the "supreme Law of the Land." They include the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) of 1949 covering the treatment of prisoners in time of war and Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) the same year on protection of civilians in wartime in enemy hands or under occupation by a foreign power.

No authority gives presidents, governments or militaries the right to ignore them, but this president and government flaunt them openly, almost gleefully They practically boast about it, enraging people everywhere including allies and the entire Muslim world this country collectively demonizes as terrorists, militants and Islamofascists in its concocted "war on terror" the Pentagon now calls the "Long War" that won't end in our lifetime.

In early 2003, Johnson warned us about "the sorrows already invading our lives....to be our fate for years to come: perpetual war, a collapse of constitutional government, endemic official lying and disinformation, and finally bankruptcy." Then and now, he still hopes Americans will see the threat and act before it's too late, but time, he believes, is short, and overall, he's not hopeful. His newest book explains how we got here, and what we must do to avoid our appointment with Nemesis who's very patient, but even hers has limits and we're approaching it.

This review covers the essence and flavor of Johnson's case he makes in seven powerful chapters. They're not recommended at bedtime.

Militarism and Breakdown of Constitutional Government

Johnson begins by noting other 20th century empires that rose and fell with parallels to our situation today. He cites among others the Brits, Soviets, Nazis, Japanese, and Ottomans to press his case that we like them, and ancient Rome earlier, "are approaching the edge of a huge waterfall and are about to plunge over it." He quotes historian Kevin Baker's fear we're perilously close to the day when our Congress, like the Roman Senate in 27 BC, will use its power for the last time before turning it over to a military dictator. Based on the past six years, it's arguable it's already with a civilian one.

The Bush-Cheney administration brought us to this point, but the crisis didn't start with them. It began at the beginning when Benjamin Franklin warned us we have a Republic if we can keep it. It advanced gradually but accelerated post-WW II when we emerged as the only dominant nation left standing and planned to keep it that way causing the "sorrows" we now face - an imperial presidency, erosion of checks and balances and separation of powers, and a culture of militarism that's a power unto itself that today who would dare challenge.

The Founders tried preventing the kind of tyranny colonists endured under King George III. They invented a system of constitutionally mandated republican government with a federal authority sharing power with the states and three separate branches in Washington able to check and balance each other with the single most important power put in the hands of Congress so presidents would never have it - the ability to declare war. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, said it's because: "Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.... (Delegating) such powers (to the president) would have struck, not only at the fabric of the Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments."

The last times Congress used its sole power were on December 8, 1941 after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and on December 11 after Germany and Italy declared war on America because their Axis Power obligations required them to do it and Hitler's and "Il Duce's" imperial eyes were bigger than their realpolitik stomachs.

Today more than two centuries later, Benjamin Franklin's warning hits home harder than ever as the Founders' constitutional framework has nearly disintegrated. The president is more powerful than a monarch. Along with the military, he has his own private army in the form of a clandestine CIA plus control of all 15 extraconstitutional intelligence organizations. They and the military answer to no one including the Congress because they operate secretly with undisclosed budgets (even the Pentagon has in part), and the law of the land is just an artifact, powerless to constrain them.

In Nemesis, Johnson concentrates on the power of the military and a single intelligence agency, the CIA. He says upfront he believes "we will never again know peace, nor in all probability survive very long as a nation, unless we abolish the CIA, restore intelligence collecting to the State Department, and remove all but purely military functions from the Pentagon." Even if we do it, he now believes it's too late as the nation once called a model democracy "may have been damaged beyond repair (and) it will take a generation or more (at best) to overcome the image of 'America as torturer'"and rogue state showing contempt for international law, human rights, and ordinary people everywhere. It's not what the Founders conceived nor how things should have been in a democratic state Lincoln said at Gettysburg was "of the people, by the people, for the people...." Today it's only for the privileged.

It turned out badly because power corrupts those getting too much of it, and since 1941 that power grew as the nation prepared for wars it never stopped mobilizing for since. It comes with a price - the end of democracy and loss of freedoms that can't coexist with imperialism on the march for conquest and dominance that turned America the beautiful into a nation to be feared and hated. We emerged from WW II haughty and confident as the world's unchallengeable economic, political and military superpower almost like we planned it that way which we did. We weren't about to give it up and intended taking full advantage to rule the world, tolerate no outliers, and demand fealty and deference from all nations with hell to pay to ones that balk.

The mislabeled "good war" launched our global imperium now on the march for "full-spectrum dominance" meaning absolute unchallengeable control of all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems - no small aim indeed for rulers with larger than possible ambitions and no intention backing off, so help us all.

It makes the cost painfully high with more military spending than the rest of the world combined, but never enough for a voracious military-industrial establishment and complicit government going along meaning finding justification for it. September 11, 2001, dubbed the "New Pearl Harbor," served it up like room service ushering in an intense and contrived climate of fear allowing the country to go on a rampage to solidify control through aggressive wars against enemies always easy to invent to assure we won't run out of them. Heading the list are resource-rich countries or ones like Afghanistan because they're strategically located near energy-rich areas like the Caspian Basin. But any leader forgetting "who's boss" gets in the target queue for regime change, even model democrats like Hugo Chavez needing reminders our sovereignty comes ahead of theirs.

And who'll dare challenge the notion that might makes right so international laws, norms and "supreme Law of the Land" treaties can be dismissed to get on with the business at hand. It doesn't matter to a rogue empire on the march and a president believing the law is what he says it is, the national security is just rhetoric for I'll do as I please, and the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper." What he and those around him lack in subtleness, they make up for big time in brazenness, but that kind of attitude paves the road to hell we're on for our appointment with Nemesis.

Johnson reviews our campaign against Iraq since the Gulf war in 1991. That conflict, killer-sanctions for the next dozen years, and the Iraq war since 2003 all violate international laws and are clear instances of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but what power will hold the world's only superpower to account. The toll on Iraq and its people for the past 16 years has been devastating. The US campaign destroyed a once prosperous nation and its priceless heritage leaving in its wake a surreal lawless armed camp wasteland with few or no essential services including electricity, clean water and sanitation facilities, medical care, fuel and most everything else needed for sustenance, public safety and survival.

Johnson quotes experts saying the looting of the National Museum of Baghdad and burning of the National Library and Archives and Library of Korans at the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Endowments amounted to "the greatest cultural disaster of the last 500 years (and some say since the) Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258 to find looting on this scale." Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon went to great pains protecting the Oil Ministry, but were indifferent, almost gleeful seeing priceless treasures looted and burned. It detroyed a "whole universe of antiquity" Iraqis and civilized people everywhere won't ever forgive us for.

In all, the Gulf war and US-imposed sanctions caused 1.5 million or more Iraqi deaths up to March, 2003 plus another 3.5 million or more refugees to the present outside Iraq or internally displaced. In addition, the shocking 2006 Lancet published study estimated the joint US-British invasion caused another 655,000 violent deaths since then through mid-2006, although they readily admitted the true figure might be as high as 900,000 because they were unable to survey the most violent parts of the country or interview thousands of families all of whose members were killed.

Already the US-inflicted devastation on Iraq and its people since 1991 amounts to one of the great war/sanctions/and occupation related crimes in human history. Their effects keep mounting exponentially with no way to know how great the toll will be when it's over. One day it will be because Iraqis won't stop fighting for their freedom till it is, but none of this gets reported in US media and precious little anywhere in the West. So far, war continues because America's on the march, and Johnson notes US soldiers in Iraq are only accountable to their superiors in the field or the Pentagon, and an estimated 100,000 civilian contractors are only accountable to themselves.

The darkest side of our adventurism is our global network of military prisons (authorized by the Secretary of Defense and Pentagon) where physical and mental torture are practiced even though it's known no useful information comes from it. Instead it's used for social control, vengeance and a policy of degrading people regarded as sub-human because they happen to be less-than-white Arab or Afghan Muslims. It's also a symbolic act of superpower defiance daring the world community to challenge us. International Geneva Convention laws and the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment no longer matter for the lord and master of the universe. The US is accountable under them, but clever lawyers and a lawless Attorney General rewrite the rules of engagement claiming justification even when they don't have a leg to stand on.

Imperial Pathologies - Comparing America to Rome and Britain

Johnson makes his case citing ancient Rome to show how imperialism and militarism destroyed the Republic. He notes after its worst defeat at the hands of Carthaginian general Hannibal in 216 BC, Romans vowed never again to tolerate the rise of a Mediterranean power capable of threatening their survival and felt justified waging preemptive war against any opponent it thought might try.

That was Paul Wolfowitz's notion as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the GHW Bush administration in
1992 that he began implementing as Deputy Secretary of Defense in 2001 and made part of the National Security Strategy in 2002. It was an ancient Roman megalomanic vision called Pax Romana that post-WW II became Pax Americana with illusions of wanting unchallengeable dominance to deter any potential rival, and, like ancient Rome, wage preemptive or preventive war to assure it.

A culture of corruption and militarism eroded the Roman Republic that effectively ended in 49 BC when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River in Northern Italy plunging the country in civil war that left Caesar victorious when all his leading opponents were dead. The Republic died with them as Caesar became the state exercising dictatorship over it from 48 to 44 BC when his reign ended on the Ides of March that year after his fateful meeting in the Roman Senate with Brutus, Cassius and six other conspirators whose long knives did what enemy legions on battlefields couldn't. It led to the rise of Caesar's grandnephew Octavian. In 27 BC, the Roman Senate gave him his new title, Augustus Caesar, making him Rome's first emperor after earlier ceding most of its powers to him. He then emasculated Rome's system of republican rule turning the Senate into an aristocratic family club performing ceremonial duties only.

It was much the same in Nazi Germany only much faster. The German Reichstag made Adolph Hitler Reichschallcellor on January 30, 1933 ceding its power to him March 23 by enacting the Enabling Act or Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Empire establishing a Nazi dictatorship and allowing the Weimar Republic to pass quietly into history. With a whimper, not a bang, it gave Hitler absolute power and the right to enact laws and constitutional changes on his own with little more than rubber-stamping approval from an impotent Reichstag that anointed him Reichsfuhrer a year later allowing him supreme power to destroy the state he only got to rule for 12 years.

Like Nazi Germany and other empires, Johnson explains the "Roman Republic failed to adjust to the unintended consequences of its imperialism (and militaristic part of it) leading to drastic alterations in its form of government" that was transformed into dictatorship. It's constitution became undermined along with genuine political and human rights its citizens once had but lost under imperial rule. Rome's military success made made it very rich and its leaders arrogant leading to what Johnson calls "the first case of what today we call imperial overstretch." It didn't help that a citizen army of conscripts got transformed into professional military warriors. It grew large and unwieldy becoming a state within a state like our Pentagon today. It created a culture of militarism that turned into a culture of moral decay leading to the empire's decline and fall.

The US Republic has yet to collapse, but an imperial presidency now places great strain on it with a dominant Pentagon and culture of militarism undermining Congress, the courts and our civil liberties. Ancient Rome proved republican checks and balances aren't compatible with imperial dreams and a powerful military on the march for them. The US may have crossed its own Rubicon on September 18, 2001 with the passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) by joint House-Senate resolution authorizing "the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States (and) giving the President....authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States...."

By this act alone, George Bush got congressional authority to seize near dictatorial power in the name of national security, ignore constitutional and international law, be able to wage aggressive war to protect the nation, and get repressive laws passed threatening citizens and others alike with loss of our freedoms. Then in October, 2002, Congress voted the president unrestricted power to preemptively strike Iraq whenever he believed it "appropriate" meaning he was free to wage aggressive war against Iraq or any other nation he henceforth called a threat using tactical nuclear weapons if he chooses.

This kind of unrestricted power isn't just dictatorial authority. It's insanity courtesy of the Congress and supportive right wing courts. It's taking us the same way as ancient Rome assuring our fate will be no different unless it's stopped and reversed. It's the inevitable price of imperial arrogance making leaders feel invulnerable till they no longer are, and it's too late.

We may still have a choice, and Johnson cites the one Britain took to explain. They sacrificed empire to preserve democracy knowing they couldn't have both. They earlier took up the "White Man's Burden" in a spirit of imperial "goodness" we now call "spreading democracy" believing Anglo-Saxons deserved to rule other nations, especially ones of color they thought inferior. Johnson explains "successful imperialism requires that a domestic republic change into a tyranny." It happened to Rome, and he sees it happening here under an imperial presidency with militarism taking ever greater root in society. Britain was spared by a democratic resurgence followed WW II. People finally freed from the scourge of Nazism said never again and chose democracy to assure it.

We must now choose whether to return to our founding roots or stay on our present path heading to imperial tyranny. For Johnson, Rome and Britain are the "archtypes" defining where we stand and what we face. Rome chose empire, lost its Republic and then everything. Britain went the other way choosing democracy despite the Blair government's disgraceful post-9/11 imperial indiscretions acting as Washington's pawn in service to our adventurism. Now late in the game, we must choose one way or the other. We can either have our democratic "cake" or "eat it" and suffer the consequences. We can't have it both ways.

The CIA - The President's Private Army

Imperial Rome had its elite praetorian guard to protect and serve its emperors. The CIA here works the same way as a private army for the president that in the end will go his way as it did producing phony intelligence the Bush administration used to justify war with Iraq. It proved its loyalty by its willingness to lie, but it does lots more than that - the kinds of extrajudicial things it gets away with because everything about "the company" is secret, including its budget. It puts CIA beyond the law making it unaccountable to the public and Congress that have every right to know in a "democracy" but none under imperial rule. Johnson stresses that US presidents have "untrammeled control of the CIA (and it's) probably (their) single most extraordinary power" as it puts them beyond the check and balancing powers of Congress and courts constitutionally required in republican systems of government. Not in our "Republic," at least since 1947 when the National Security Act created the CIA under Harry Truman to succeed the wartime OSS dissolved in 1945.

Johnson explains CIA originally had five missions. Four dealt with collection, coordination and dissemination of intelligence. The fifth one was vague allowing the agency to "perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the National Security Council
(overseeing it) may....direct." This mandate caused the problem turning "CIA into the personal, secret, unaccountable army of the president" and making secret covert, often mischievous illegal, operations its main function. Their duties include overthrowing democratically elected governments, assassinating foreign heads of state and key officials, propping up friendly dictators, and snatching targeted individuals for "extraordinary rendition" on privately-leased aircraft to secret torture-prisons for not too gracious treatment on arrival that may include "destroying" the evidence after completing interrogation.

We claimed justification for it during the Cold War even though extrajudicial activities are never permissible under republican constitutional government. Today under George Bush, things are further complicated as CIA is one of 15 intelligence agencies under a director of National Intelligence (DNI). But even with this realignment, CIA remains the president's private praetorian guard army accountable only to him with tens of billions of secret budget power to do plenty of damage.

It now lets CIA be more active than ever as under Bush it's got double the number of covert operatives making Johnson believe the spy agency's original purpose is history with DNI now handling most intelligence gathering functions. CIA is now a mostly global hit squad Mafia with Bush its resident Godfather sending it off to do "assassinations, dirty tricks, renditions, and engineering foreign coups. In the intelligence field it will be restricted to informing our presidents and generals about current affairs." In all it does, the agency's secrecy shields the chief executive from responsibility giving him plausible deniability if anything leaks out. Johnson explains "CIA's bag of dirty tricks....is a defining characteristic of the imperial presidency. It is a source of unchecked power that can gravely threaten the nation....(Its) so-called reforms....in 2006 have probably further shortened the life of the American republic." "The company" is a menace to democratic rule. Either it goes or our freedoms do.

US Military Bases Around the World

People in US cities would be outraged if another country garrisoned its troops close by with all the resulting fallout: unacceptable noise, pollution, environmental destruction, appropriation of valued public real estate along with drunken soldiers on the loose violating laws, causing damage and raping local women. Not the kinds of neighbors we choose, especially when they're mostly unaccountable for their actions.

We don't generally give other nations basing rights here. But the Pentagon practically demands other countries allow us the right to put our troops on choice parts of their real estate around the world. That's real heavy-handed imperial arrogance mindful of an earlier time when imperialism could be measured by an empire's colony count. Military outposts are our version set up to operate by our own rules when we show up. Locals have no say and neither does the host country once a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is finalized that gives the US "guest" freedom from host country laws and restraints governing civilian life and exemption from any inconvenient environmental cleanup obligations. That subject is covered in the next section.

Only one superpower remained after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, and the Russians never posed a serious challenge before it did. All along we greatly outclassed and outgunned them, and Moscow only wanted a standoff if it came to that. During the Cold War, we had many military outposts around the world supposedly aimed at them, but how do we justify them now. They're not for defense. They're for offense in contrast to home-based ones to defend the nation.

Johnson reviews the known number of US bases in other countries by size and branch of service. According to the Department of Defense's Base Structure Report through 2005, the official total of all sizes is 737, but so many were built in recent years, Johnson believes the actual number exceeds 1000 and is rising. Unlisted ones includes dozens in Iraq, 106 garrisons in Afghanistan, the gigantic Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo built after the Yugoslav war in 1999, and others in Eastern Europe, Israel, Qatar and other Gulf states plus ongoing negotiations all the time to build new bases in new locations in new and currently "occupied" countries.

It takes a lot of resources maintaining an operation this sized. Just the facilities and staff alone make the cost truly staggering. Included are the number of military, civil service and locally hired personnel, facilities, acreage, weaponry and munitions (including thousands of nuclear weapons) and everything else needed to keep a worldwide operation this size functioning. And this only covers what's open to the public and Congress excluding what the Pentagon and host countries keep secret. There's plenty of that including information about bases the US uses to eavesdrop on global communications or our nuclear deployments violating treaty obligations. The Pentagon keeps much of this hidden deploring any oversight as part of its culture of secrecy concealing from Congress and our NATO allies the true extent of our strength, breath and intentions.

Once Donald Rumsfeld got to the Pentagon he fit right in and served there once before under Gerald Ford. He didn't hide how he wanted to restructure the military to make it lighter, more agile and high tech but no less secret. The result was Department of Defense's Global Posture Review first mentioned by George Bush in November, 2003. It divides military installations into three types:

-- (1) Main Operating Bases (MOBs) having permanently stationed combat forces, extensive infrastructure, command and control headquarters and extensive accommodations for families including hospitals, schools and recreational facilities. The Pentagon calls these bases "little Americas."

-- (2) Forward Operation Sites (FOSs) that are major installations smaller than MOBs and over which the Pentagon tries maintaining a low profile. They exclude families, and troop rotations in and out are for six months, not three years as at MOBs.

-- (3) Cooperative Security Locations (CSLs) - they're the smallest, most austere and are called "lily pads" to cover the entire planet's "arc of instability" that could include countries earmarked for future military action. Preparation here includes prepositioned weapons and munitions.

The new global repositioning plan comes with a huge price tag. The Overseas Basing Commission estimates it at $20 billion and would be much higher but for the Pentagon's standard practice getting host countries to pay their share of the tab allowing us basing rights on their territory. It's called "burden sharing" or our notion of a country we occupy helping pay the cost of deterring potential common enemies. At a time when only US militarism poses a threat to world peace, one day countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, Spain and others no longer will tolerate our garrisoning troops on their soil. Ecuador under its new president, Raphael Correa, already served notice his country won't renew the US base lease in Manta when it expires in 2009 unless Washington allows his country comparable basing rights in Miami that's impossible. Other countries may follow suit just like the East Europeans kicked out the Soviets after their nations broke away in 1991.

Today the Middle East commands center stage with the Pentagon building major military installations in Iraq similar to the permanent kind in Germany and Japan. Iraq is key to US imperial plans because of its vast and easily accessible oil reserves but for a covert reason as well. Johnson believes it's part of our "empire building" - to shift major Saudi bases to the country making it a "permanent Pentagon outpost" to control the area's "arc of instability" and region's oil reserves that comprise 60% or more of the world's proven total.

Add together all Muslim nations everywhere and their combined known oil reserves are between two-thirds to three-quarters of total world supply. If we control it all, it gives Washington enormous veto power over all nations wanting accessing to the vital juice economies run on. And if we keep demonizing Muslims as enemies and people believe it, it's easy justifying our state-sponsored terror wars on them for all the wrong reasons we say are the right ones.

Headquarters for what's planned in the Middle East are now on four or more permanent Iraq "super-bases" with possible others to come. Many billions of dollars went into them, and they're anchor fixtures in the country along with 100 or more others ranging from mega to micro showing the extent of our digging in for the long haul in a country and region we're not planning to leave in a hurry.

It also shows in the kind of embassy we're building inside the four square mile Green Zone in central Baghdad. Critics call it "Fortress Baghdad" because it's to be the largest US embassy in the world by far, encircled by 15-foot thick concrete walls and rings of concertina wire along with protective surface-to-air missiles. Large numbers of private-sector bodyguards and US military guard its vast facilities, there's modern infrastructure comparable to any large US city with all the comforts and luxuries of home, Saddam's private swimming pool is for GIs and others to frolic in, hometown comfort food abounds, and staff and officials are planned to number around 1000. It's larger than Vatican City, six times the size of the UN New York compound, and has become a hated symbol of imperial occupation, death and destruction it caused, and the oppressive dominance Iraqis are committed to end.

Iraqi history shows an intolerance to occupation, and Iraqis are convinced they'll maintain tradition proving again that notions of permanency are in the eyes of the beholder and their end may come sooner than planned. Our super-facilities may end up just like their mega-predecessors in Danang, Cam Rahn Bay and the Saigon embassy housing the last remnants of US presence helicoptered off its rooftop in defeat and humiliation. We left them and much more behind when the Vietmanese kicked us out, even though we never go anywhere planning to leave in a hurry if ever.

US Imperialism at Work - Status of Force Agreements (SOFAs) and How They Work

SOFAs are formal contractual arrangements the US negotiates with other countries implementing basic agreements we first agree to with host nations allowing us the right to garrison troops and civilian personnel there either on a new base we build or an existing one. They follow once the Pentagon arranges a contractual "alliance" with a host country usually based on "common objectives" and "international threats to peace." In final form, they're intended to put US personnel as far outside domestic law as possible and spell out host nation obligations to us. Except for our reciprocal NATO agreements with member countries, they also give our military and civilian personnel special privileges unavailable to ordinary citizens of the host nation. It doesn't work that way with western European states. They have collective clout and won't tolerate the types of one-way deals we impose on smaller, weaker nations that can't stand up to our kind of bullying.

For host nations, SOFAs come with problems along with perceived benefits. They result in unacceptable noise, pollution, environmental damage with no remediation obligation, and they use valuable real estate unavailable to the host or their people who can't avoid the kinds of fallout problems showing up after we do. They include foreigners on their soil accountable to US military rules and justice but not to theirs even when crimes are committed against innocent civilians like local women being abused and raped by drunken unruly troops believing away from home they can do as they please and get away with it. They nearly always can.

Johnson cites between 1998 and 2004 in Japan, US military personnel were involved in 2,024 reported crimes or accidents on duty. Only one led to a court-martial, 318 to "administrative discipline, and the remainder were apparently absolved even though at least some of these crimes involved robberies, rapes, reckless homicide, assaults and other kinds of abuses no one would get away with at home. The result abroad is growing public anger and discontent Johnson illustrates with a prominent example.

It's on the island of Okinawa, Japan's southern-most and poorest prefecture and a place Johnson knows well from his time in the Navy and as an expert on the country and region that includes a book he co-wrote and edited called Okinawa: Cold War Island. The US has its way with Japan having defeated its empire in
1945, wrote its constitution in the aftermath, and has occupied the country ever since. It's well dug in for the long haul with 88 bases on the Japanese islands, a country smaller than California. Thirty-seven of those bases are on Okinawa, a tiny sliver of land about the size of a large US city. It's easy understanding why Okinawans are justifiably angry. They've been practically pushed into the Pacific to make way for US occupation of their island taking over most of its valued real estate and not treating it too well or the people.

Okinawans' greatest outrage, however, is over SOFA-related article 17 covering criminal justice. It states "The custody of an accused member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component (shall) remain with the United States until he is charged." It means when US personnel commit crimes, Japanese investigative authorities have no exclusive access to suspects until they're indicted in court. That hamstrings investigations enough to make prosecutors often reluctant to press charges because they can't get enough evidence to go to trial.

Johnson cites a particularly grievous example he calls the "most serious incident to influence Japanese-American relations since the Security Treaty was signed in 1960." It happened in September, 1995 when two marines abducted a 12-year old girl, beat and raped her, then left her on a beach going back to their base in a rented car. In October, 85,000 Okinawans protested in a park demanding Japanese and American authorities address their grievances after the US military refused to hand over the suspects to Japanese police. This may be a notable example, but it illustrates what Okinawans have endured for over 60 years. The US military runs their territory without accountability to Japanese law. As a result, US personnel get away with rapes, drunken brawling, muggings, drug violations, arson and criminal homicide - because they're superior white-skinned Americans, not yellow-skinned Japanese judged inferior.

Things likely can't get much worse for Okinawans, but if the US gets its way they probably will for all Japanese. It relates to Washington's growing concern over China's explosive growth and increasing dominance in the Pacific region. That makes the Chinese a major US regional rival and potential superpower challenger some day. Bush officials won't tolerate it and are pressuring Japan to revise article 9 of its constitution renouncing force except for self-defense. The US wants Japan to be our "Britain of the Far East" or "cop on the beat" to use the country as a front line regional proxy against China, North Korea or any other East Asian state forgetting "who's boss."


But that notion doesn't set well with Japanese people resulting in mass protests throughout the country in opposition. They know how destructive WW II was and want no reoccurrences of it even though already Japan again is a military power. It has the most powerful navy in the world after the US, a total force size of nearly one-quarter million in uniform, 452 combat aircraft and a military budget equalling China's.

After long and difficult negotiations, the Japanese cabinet finally agreed to approve a planned US realignment of forces in their country that won't please its neighbors or its own people. Former prime minister Koizumi and his right-wing supporters yearn to make their country a formidable power again and thus agreed to various unpalatable US basing decisions despite popular opposition to them. It shows Japanese and US officials' insensitivity to deep-seated feelings on the ground that will only lead to further heightened tensions in the region with China and North Korea facing off against their US and Japanese rivals.

The Ultimate Imperial Project in Space

The notion of "full spectrum dominance" spelled it out. The US considers outer space part of its territory, claims sole right to dominate it, and won't tolerate a challenger interfering with our plans to militarize the heavens reigning supreme over planet earth from them. The whole idea is chilling having grown out of Ronald Reagan's March 23,1983 speech calling for greater defense spending during the Cold War. He wanted a huge R & D program for what became known as "Star Wars" - an impermeable anti-missile shield in space called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). It hardly mattered that the whole idea was fantasy, but a glorious one for defense contractors who've profited hugely on it since. From inception, the program's funding ebbed and flowed with a tsunami now going into it for an administration addicted to all things military and a friendly Federal Reserve acting as "pusher" printing up all the ready cash to do it.

The Clinton administration only gave it modest support, but that all changed once George Bush became president and Donald Rumsfeld returned to the Pentagon for his second tour as Secretary of Defense with fewer restraints than the first time. He wanted the US prepared for space warfare as insane as the idea is. What's not insane is how hugely defense contractors profit from an open-ended boondoggle padding their bottom lines as long as no future president and Congress halt the madness. Rumsfeld had his own ideas about committing the country to building and deploying space-based weapons to destroy nuclear-armed missile launches even though it can't be done now or ever.

MIT's Theodore Postal is a leading authority on ballistic missile defenses. He's spent years debunking notions that any useful defensive shield will ever work. He flatly states: "the National Missile Defense System has no credible scientific chance of working (and) is a serious abuse of our security system." Nonetheless, the program is ongoing and running strong under Robert Gates' new management at the Pentagon as he's not known as one to buck his White House bosses that's one reason he got the job.

Johnson says all the "rhetoric about a future space war is ideological posturing" similar to the "missile gap" nonsense beginning in the Kennedy years. The notion of wars from or in space are self-defeating because the adverse consequences from them affect us as well as any adversary. Waging one would be like firing a gun exploding in our face harming us as much as anyone hit by it. Dangerous orbiting space debris, already a growing problem, is just one of many serious consequences space wars would produce. Enough of it would threaten military and commercial spacecraft that, in turn, would threaten activities in space. Johnson notes the Air Force currently tracks 13,400 man-made space objects, only a few hundred of which are orbiting satellites. We also know of more than
100,000 smaller pieces of untrackable junk, each the size of a marble and millions more even smaller fragments.

The problem isn't their size. It's the speed they travel at - up to 17,500 miles per hour (same as the space shuttle), meaning when they strike an object they pack a wallop that can be lethal if large enough debris hits an orbiting spacecraft or satellite. Johnson quotes UC Santa Cruz professor of physics Joel Primack saying: "Weaponizing of space would make the debris problem much worse, and even one war in space could encase the entire planet in a shell of whizzing debris that would thereafter make space near the Earth highly hazardous for peaceful as well as military purposes....(and) will jeopardize the possibility of space exploration."

Johnson concurs on how ill-conceived our missile defense schemes and notions of real star wars are that need to come off the table but won't under warrior leadership. He says: "The conclusion is unavoidable: Washington has given us the best illusion of protection against nuclear attack without reducing the odds of such an attack." He goes on adding the whole program is fraught with insurmountable problems from space debris to the inability to distinguish between a hostile missile launch and a decoy plus a record of endless test failures proving they'll only continue as long as the charade does. He then speculates about what's likely true. The whole business of missile defense is just a PR ploy plus another scheme to enrich defense contractors who return the favor with big campaign contributions and plush job offers whenever politicians retire to move on to "greener" pastures.

The amount of money spent since the 1980s has been enormous without a single success to show for it - between $92 and $130 billion with an estimated cost by a theoretical completion date of 2015 of $1.2 trillion. One analyst called it "Pork Barrel in the Sky," but it boils down to one of the most extreme cases of corruption in Washington adding to the vast cesspool of it there. It played heavy on voters' minds in mid-term elections with public outrage a major factor in them demanding change that always ends up getting none. Voters never learn new faces don't mean new policies, at least not in Washington where the criminal class is bipartisan and one back gets scratched to assure others do.

It adds up to further trouble ahead and the greatest danger we now face - our imperial adventurism heading from one conflict to another in an endless cycle harming us as much as any adversary. The longer it continues, the worse things get making only one solution obvious. On responsibly using space Johnson puts it this way, but it applies to all our actions if we plan on surviving: "....we must relearn how to cooperate with our fellow inhabitants of the planet and take the lead in crafting international agreements on the rules of the road in space....We should outlaw all weapons that are designed to destroy other nations' (space assets). If one side blinds the other," it will conclude the worst and retaliate, and one way would be to detonate a nuclear weapon in space that would have an electromagnetic pulse instantly "fry(ing) the electronics in all orbiting satellites."

That would produce a level global playing field the hard way meaning - no more "smart bombs," electronic battlefields, global positioning systems, secure communications from field to commanders or any satellite communications. Instead of crafting multilateral agreements to prevent this, the US instead continues acting hostilely by pushing full steam ahead on space-based antisatellite weapons and driving the nation to bankruptcy doing it. Johnson notes space is another "arena for American hubris and one more piece of evidence that Nemesis is much closer than most of us would care to contemplate."

The Crisis of the American Republic

George Bush wasn't our first president to abuse his power. Other far more notable predecessors also did it like Lincoln suspending habeas rights during the Civil War and FDR's home front war against the Japanese - the ones who were honorable, decent Americans whose only "crimes" were their ancestry and skin color. It made them less human and denied them justice. Instead, it got them incarcerated for the remainder of the war they had nothing to do with or wanted, even though the ones allowed to fight against the Nazis did it courageously and honorably.

The difference between then and now was checks and balances were in place and the separation of powers worked restraining presidents from abusing their authority. That ended the day five arrogant Supreme Court justices annulled the popular vote letting George Bush steal the office Al Gore won at the polls including in Florida. It's been straight downhill since the way it was for Rome when it passed from Republic to repressive empire. The freedoms we've long take for granted have eroded and democracy in America is an endangered species hovering somewhere between life support and the crematorium unless a way is found to resurrect it.

As things now stand, Bush and Cheney rule a rogue state working cooperatively in a corrupted two-party alliance assuring the skids are greased and fix is in. The US Congress is no different than the kind of social club for aristocrats the Roman Senate became when it gave its power to the Caesar it hailed. It lets the administration conduct affairs of state according to what it calls the "unitary executive theory of the presidency" that's a simple "ball-faced assertion of presidential supremacy....dressed up in legal mumbo jumbo" written by clever lawyers easily finding lots of ways getting around pesky laws in the name of national security for a nation at war against enemies invented to justify schemes now playing out around the world.

It boils down to despotic rule or a national security police state all repressive regimes become in the end including the fascist kinds we're now on the tipping edge of. Unless it's stopped, things won't be pretty when the final mask comes off and jackboots are in the streets along with tanks when needed. And when the public resists, as it surely will, expect South Chicago to look like Baghdad today and its North side too.

Johnson notes it's possible the US military one day will usurp authority and declare a military dictatorship the way it happened in Rome, but he thinks it's unlikely. If dictatorship comes, he expects the civilian kind with military power backing it up. Most likely, Johnson thinks things will muddle along and continue drifting under an illusion of constitutional cover until fiscal insolvency unravels it all. But that won't end the nation state any more than it did to Germany in 1923 or Argentina in 2001-02. It might even herald a new beginning even though transitioning to it would mean lots of turbulence, a lower standard of living and a much different relationship between this country and others including ones supplanting us as most dominant.

Johnson concludes his narrative returning to where it all began starting with volume one of his unintended trilogy. He says in "Blowback" he tried explaining why people around the world hate us. It's not just our government's actions against others but refers to retaliation for the kinds of acts we commit like ousting outlier regimes not willing to play by our imperial management rules meaning we're "boss," and what we say goes. It's a simple law of physics that there's no action without reaction. If we slap them enough, they start slapping back. Volume two was "The Sorrows of Empire" written while America prepared the public for wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. It covered the country's militarization since WW II best symbolized by our sprawl of bases across the planet assuring hegemony over it but guaranteeing more blowback from our "indiscretions" any time we decide reminders are needed who's "boss" and those reminded get cranky.

Volume three is Nemesis and the subject of this review. In it, Johnson "tried to present historical, political, economic, and philosophical evidence of where our current behavior is likely to lead." He believes our present course is a road to perdition in the form of fiscal insolvency and a military or civilian dictatorship. Our Founders knew the risk and tried preventing it with our constitutional republican government now in jeopardy. It's come from our commitment to large standing armies, constant war, reckless stimulative military Keynesianism spending causing an erosion of democracy and growth of an imperial presidency. Once a nation goes this way, its fate is the same as all others that tried - "isolation, overstretch, the uniting of forces opposed to imperialism, and bankruptcy." It's symbol is that patient Greek goddess now visiting our shores awaiting the tribute she'll demand - "our end as a free nation."

It's now our choice. We can continue the same way as imperial Rome and lose our democracy or chose the British model keeping it at the expense of sacrificing empire. Johnson ends his book citing Japanese scholar and journalist Hotsumi Ozaki as a role model example. Ozaki understood his country's occupation of China would fail and lead to the kind of blowback caused by the Chinese Communist revolution. He tried warning his government, but was hanged as a traitor for his efforts late in WW II. Johnson hopes he won't meet a similar fate but is as certain as Ozaki "that my country is launched on a dangerous path that it must abandon or else face the consequences." We should hope we never see them, but wishing alone won't make it so.

[moeen yaseen]

LEADERS DON'T KILL PEOPLE

Michael Boldin
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17227.htm

If I have my facts straight, George W. Bush has never killed a single person in his life. All the torture and death that people attribute to him has been carried out by people who were "only following orders."

Psychologically, I find this quite interesting. As a person, it doesn't appear that Bush would or could hurt anyone, especially not innocent people. But, as "commander-in-chief," he can order and oversee actions that result in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents without even batting an eye. A friend and critic of mine believes that leaders such as Bush assume full responsibility for the actions of a nation's military. I strongly disagree.

We've all heard the excuses over and over again. The soldiers aren't responsible because they're following orders. The military isn't responsible because they have to obey the civilian leadership. The President isn't responsible because he was given bad intelligence. The intelligence agencies aren't responsible because they had bad informants, and made the best call they could under the circumstances. And, of course, Congress isn't responsible either. Why not? I don't really know. Maybe it's because they're utterly incompetent.

Seriously, though, we have a major problem here.

RESPONSIBILITY

So, who is responsible for the death and destruction in Iraq?

Who? The pilots who dropped the bombs? The commanding officers? The secretary of defense? The President? Or, as the war hawks would like us to believe, is it the people defending their homeland from invasion? If they'd just stop resisting.our peace-loving, democracy-spreading military wouldn't have to defend themselves and kill these people, right?

Who is responsible might not even matter, because the truth is no one will be held accountable, and there will be no trials or prosecutions for the countless innocents that have been killed in America's foreign wars. The result is that the politicians are further emboldened to wage even more wars in the future.

STANDING ARMIES ARE DANGEROUS TO YOU

Historically, governments have misused standing armies in two main ways, both of which inevitably result in tyranny for the People. The first is to engage in foreign wars, which invariably result in massive spending, which enables the government to place a bigger and bigger tax burden on the people. This was well-stated by James Madison, the "father of the Constitution":

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. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

Governments generally call for increased patriotism at home while these foreign wars are being waged. The politicians demand greater powers and reduced liberties for the people; claiming that these moves will help bring peace. Explaining this second way standing armies are misused, Madison continued:

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

The concept here is simple. Governments use their armies to stir up, or even produce, enemies by meddling in the affairs of people in different countries. Then, they attempt to scare their own people with cries that the "enemy" is ready to invade, and that war is absolutely necessary to stop these evil killers. Once war breaks out, the government then demands additional power over the people to supposedly "protect" them in time of war.

Sound familiar?

WHERE THE REAL DANGER LIES

American history is filled with politicians who used foreign adventures to boost their political standing at home. The war in Iraq, now lasting over 15 years and Presidents from both political parties, demonstrates why the Founding Fathers so vehemently opposed standing armies.

The use of our military to invade nations or do "police actions" in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Serbia, Vietnam, and elsewhere, is both unconstitutional and immoral. The death toll resulting from this aggressive foreign policy has become massive.

Ask yourself this. Is the Iraqi insurgent fighting in Baghdad more threatening to you than warrantless spying or massive war spending? Is al Qaeda more menacing than the suspension of Habeas Corpus? Is the "terrorist" in Iraq a greater danger to your freedom than all those politicians who signed the Patriot Act without even reading it? Just exactly who or what is the greatest threat your rights?

To those not blinded by interest, the answer is clear. It's not individuals like Clinton or Bush. It's not the military. It's not the NSA, the Supreme Court, or Congress. The greatest threat to your liberty is your own government; it's the system which has allowed all this to happen! And, sadly, it's been this way for many years.

But, the politicians couldn't get away with much if we didn't give them the tools. The government couldn't grow in power without the billions of dollars they take from us each year. The politicians wouldn't be able to wage war without the massive military machine which has become synonymous with American foreign policy.

I say to you, look at who your leaders are, and ask yourself if these people can be trusted with such power. Presidents such as Truman, Bush, Johnson, and Clinton have used the military in ways which have resulted in the deaths of millions. They used the same standing army that people like George Washington and Patrick Henry warned us against. Don't tell me that this country needs such a military force. A national militia would never have done such things.

SOLUTIONS

In contrast to this bloody mess, the founders envisioned a society that would be protected by militias on the state level. A national defense would only be put together when the nation itself was directly threatened by invasion.

What's my suggestion? Well, I'm sure many of you won't like it, but that's the way things go. I say let's get rid of the whole damn military. Stop spending countless billions and billions to maintain a global presence. Bring all the troops home once and for all!

Just think, if the military was disbanded then there would be no more overseas bases. There would be no more bombings of faraway nations. There would be no more terrorists created by a meddling foreign policy. There would be no more regime changes. There would be no more foreign wars. There would be no more war funding bills to debate. There would be no more use of weapons like agent orange and depleted uranium. There would be no more enemy combatants. There would be no more military prisons. There would be no more collateral damage. And, most importantly, the root of the problem would finally be smashed into pieces; the treacherous policy of American interventionism.

Thus, there is only one solution to this grave danger to our freedom and prosperity. We the People must act on the warnings of the Founding Fathers against standing armies and foreign entanglements. We must shut down the American military empire, close every single overseas base, and bring all the troops home. The troops would then be released into the private sector, where they would be quite effective in leading local militias to defend the nation in the highly unlikely event of a foreign invasion.

REAL NATIONAL DEFENSE

Do I want a defenseless country? Absolutely not - I want a defenseless government! I want a government that doesn't have the power or the tools to wage anymore foreign wars, and thus, one that doesn't have the excuse to take away your liberty to "protect" you.

There is an alternative that one would call a real national defense. This is one where the people themselves are responsible for the defense of their country. The individual American was considered to be so effective and important to the defense of America that the Constitution specifically mentioned it in the 2nd Amendment.

Those in power, and their followers, of course, would never want this to become reality, though. They'll try to scare you away from such a strong system of defense. They'll warn you of all the great dangers that will "surely" come. But, don't believe such things, for they are the lies of tyrants!

Here's one I've heard time and time again. "If we didn't have the military, you'd be speaking German or Japanese right now!" Don't make me laugh! The Japanese were able to pull off one surprise attack by air, and the Germans weren't even able to cross the English Channel, much less the Atlantic Ocean!

So what would happen if another country ever began preparing masses of ships and planes, and millions of soldiers to invade the United States? The Founding Fathers gave us the answer. Such an invading force would be met by the power of tens of millions of free, well-armed American citizens who would quickly rise to resist and defeat any such invasion.

Think it can't work? Think again. Invading and successfully occupying nations with an armed population is a feat rarely accomplished. The people of Afghanistan were able to drive out the mighty Soviets, and just a small percentage of the Iraqi people are currently making occupation untenable for the mightiest military in the history of the world.

A NEW DIRECTION

What would we do about murderous foreign dictators? Yes, you got it. The Founding Fathers gave us an answer to that as well. First of all, the government would no longer force you to give them any money. And more importantly, the government would no longer have the ability to go around looking for tyrants to destroy, and populations to "save" through war. Instead of endless foreign entanglements, we'd build the freest and most prosperous nation in history.

Of course, those Americans who would want to leave their families and jobs to support revolutionary movements in other parts of the world would always have the freedom to do so.

Thus, in determining our future, we have a clear choice. Should we continue down the path we are on today? Should we continue on this path of empire, with massive standing armies, hundreds of overseas bases, foreign wars and sanctions? Should we continue our foreign policy which creates hatred in millions and millions of people; thus making you a target of their retaliation? Should we continue down the path of ever-growing taxes and regulations, as well as the endless loss of liberty that always comes with empire?

Or, should we change direction? Should we take our nation down the path that the Founder Fathers envisioned? Should we create a society where government is strictly limited and forbidden from invading foreign nations? Should we build a society where freedom and prosperity reigns; a nation that would serve as a model for the rest of the world? If we choose this path, every person on earth would always know that there would be at least one refuge for the oppressed, the United States of America.

We can have something different, and I, for one, choose the path of liberty.

[moeen yaseen]

THE PENTAGON's POWER TO ARREST, TORTURE AND EXECUTE AMERICANS

Jacob G. Hornberger
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17225.htm

The president and the Pentagon now wield the omnipotent power to arrest, torture, and execute any American they label an “enemy combatant.” It is impossible to overstate the significance of this power. It has totally upended the relationship of the military and civilian in the United States. The assumption of this particular power easily constitutes one of the most monumental revolutions of liberty and power in history. It is a revolution that every American must confront now, not later. If people wait until later to confront the expanded use of this power, it will be too late, because by that time it will be too dangerous to do so.

As long as this particular power is permitted to stand, there is no possibility for Americans to be considered a free people. A necessary prerequisite for restoring freedom to our land is the removal of this power from the arsenal of government officials.

Everyone needs to understand the nature of this power and its enormous significance. Historically, the U.S. military has lacked the power to arrest, incarcerate, or inflict harm on American civilians. If Americans committed a federal crime, they were subject to being indicted by a federal grand jury and then prosecuted in U.S. District Court. The Bill of Rights guaranteed that the accused would be accorded certain rights of due process of law, such as the right to defend himself with the assistance of an attorney, to confront the witnesses whose testimony the prosecutors were relying on, to summon witnesses in his behalf, to remain silent, and to have a trial by jury. Everyone was presumed to be innocent and the government had to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those constitutional protections and guarantees were upended on 9/11, without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. On 9/11 the president and the Pentagon assumed to themselves the power to take any American into custody and inflict violence on him, without according him any of the protections provided by the Bill of Rights. Today, the Pentagon has the authority, on orders of its commander in chief, to send American soldiers into any neighborhood in the country and take into custody any American citizen and inflict harm on him simply by labeling him an “enemy combatant” in the “war on terror.”

Let me emphasize something important here, especially for libertarians, who have long committed their lives to the achievement of a free society: There is no way – none – to reconcile the assumption of this power with a free society. In fact, it is the most powerful government power of all – the ultimate power that can ever be wielded by a tyrannical government. No infringement on economic liberty – hyperinflation, confiscatory taxation, oppressive regulation, or the like – can compare in significance with the omnipotent power of a government official to arbitrarily pick up anyone he wants for any reason he wants and incarcerate him, torture him, and execute him.

Here’s how this revolution of liberty and power occurred.

After 9/11, U.S. officials declared what they called a “war on terror.” They said that this was akin to a real war, such as World War I and World War II, despite the fact that terrorism was still listed on the federal statute books as a federal crime. The “war on terror” was a “global” war, they said, one in which the president, the CIA, and the Pentagon would have to fight terrorists all over the world. Since it was a real war against illegal combatants, the CIA and the Pentagon did not need to heed legal and constitutional procedures. They were “taking off the gloves” to keep Americans safe from the terrorists.

The CIA and the Pentagon assumed the authority to kidnap, capture, arrest, torture, “rendition,” and execute suspected terrorists all over the world. There were a few indictments, prosecutions, and convictions for terrorism in federal court, such as that of 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. But for the vast majority of foreigners U.S. officials picked up for terrorism, there was torture, indefinite incarceration, and in some cases extra-judicial executions. Sometimes the torture occurred at the hands of U.S. personnel. Other times, the torture was outsourced (“renditioned”) to police or intelligence forces of brutal, but friendly, foreign regimes.

Through it all, Americans innocently and naïvely assumed that the power now being exercised by the CIA and the Pentagon applied only to foreigners, not to Americans. Engaged in wishful thinking, they were blinding themselves to reality. As U.S. officials repeatedly emphasized after 9/11, the war on terror was global in nature, which meant that the military power to wage the war on terror included going after the terrorists right here inside the United States.

The war on terror’s iron fist unleashed itself on an American citizen named José Padilla, whom U.S. officials arrested on American soil and accused of being a terrorist. Federal officials did not indict Padilla, prosecute him, or convict him, at least not at first. Instead, U.S. military officials took control over him and denied him any right to speak to an attorney, family, or friends. The U.S. attorney general announced to the American people that Padilla was an illegal “enemy combatant” in the “war on terror.”

For three years, Padilla was held in military custody. In a recent hearing in U.S. District Court, two psychologists testified that, as a result of having been in isolation for an extended period of time and having been subjected to sensory deprivation, Padilla is now too mentally damaged to assist with his own case. Even though a government psychologist disputed Padilla’s claim, the case is bringing to public eye what U.S. officials would undoubtedly prefer to keep secret from the American people – a method of “touchless” torture that the CIA and the Pentagon have long been employing involving isolation and sensory deprivation. As Alfred McCoy described in his book A Question of Torture, this particular type of torture technique is specifically intended to cause mental damage to its victims. The CIA learned the technique from the North Korean communists, who subjected American POWs to it during the Korean War.

What is so significant about the José Padilla case?

Its significance lies not only in what U.S. officials did to Padilla but also in the fact that what they did to him, they now wield the power to do to every other American. That is the post-9/11 revolution of liberty and power that Americans must now confront if they wish to live in a free society.

The president and the Pentagon faced one big problem, however. While they correctly assumed that Congress would do nothing to stop the assumption of this omnipotent power over the American people, there was still the possibility that the federal courts would declare it to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.



So it’s not surprising that they chose someone like José Padilla as their test case, rather than some middle-class high-school principal who was a member of Rotary. Federal officials knew that Americans would feel no sympathy for Padilla, especially after the U.S. attorney general went on television and announced that Padilla was planning to explode a nuclear bomb in the United States.

After keeping him three years in military custody, the Pentagon released Padilla from the South Carolina dungeon in which he had been incarcerated and transferred him to the control of the Justice Department, which proceeded to secure a grand-jury indictment against him for terrorist-related activities overseas. Significantly, the grand jury indictment didn’t charge Padilla with the nuclear-bomb scheme that the U.S. attorney general had used to scare the American people.

Why did U.S. officials agree to prosecute Padilla in federal district court instead of continuing to treat him as an “enemy combatant” in the “war on terror”? After all, haven’t they repeatedly told Americans that terrorism is an act of war, not a criminal act? Isn’t that why Padilla was held in isolation in a military dungeon for three years? Why would they switch gears by moving him from “enemy-combatant” status to “criminal-defendant” status in federal district court?

The answer lies in the legal strategy employed by U.S. officials, a strategy that ultimately fortified the federal government’s revolutionary assumption of military power over the American people.

While Padilla was still in military custody as an “enemy combatant,” his attorneys filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a legal remedy that stretches back centuries into American and English jurisprudence. Its purpose is to negate the power of government officials to arbitrarily incarcerate and punish people without just cause. Placing ultimate power in the hands of an independent judge, the writ commands the custodian to produce the prisoner and show cause for holding him. If the judge finds that the prisoner is being held without cause, he has the power to order his release. Under the law, the custodian – whether he’s a king, a president, or a military official – must comply with the judge’s order.

The district court ruled in favor of Padilla, essentially holding that in the United States of America the military doesn’t rule over the citizenry. If Padilla or any other American was accused of terrorism, the executive branch had a remedy under the Constitution – indict him and prosecute him. Essentially, the district court held: Charge Padilla with a crime or release him.

Meanwhile, attorneys for the foreigners held at Guantanamo, who also had been held for years without being charged, were litigating their own petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts, arguing that they too had the right to be either charged or released.

The government appealed the Padilla ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative circuits in the country. Reversing the judgment of the district court, the Fourth Circuit issued one of the most ominous judicial decisions in the history of our country. Upholding the government’s concept of an “enemy combatant” in a “war on terror,” the court upended the relationship between military and civilian – and between liberty and power – that historically had existed in this country.

While the Court of Appeals judgment seemed to apply only to José Padilla, in actuality it applies to all Americans. On the day that judgment became final, the monumental legal revolution was complete, except for the possibility that the Supreme Court could still overrule the Fourth Circuit’s judgment.

What did the U.S. Supreme Court do? That was another part of the legal strategy that federal officials employed. Padilla’s attorneys, of course, fully intended to appeal the judgment of the Fourth Circuit to the Supreme Court, which very well might have reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. After all, by this time the Court had already ruled in favor of several of the Guantanamo detainees and against the government.

Before the Court could hear the case, however, federal officials transferred Padilla to federal-court jurisdiction to be indicted as a criminal defendant accused of having committed criminal acts of terrorism. Why had the government seemingly changed its position after years of claiming that Padilla was an “enemy combatant” subject to military control?

The answer was easy to see: The government had the Fourth Circuit’s judgment under its belt and it did not want to jeopardize a reversal of that judgment. Federal prosecutors knew that if they could somehow prevent the Supreme Court from hearing the case – and possibly reversing the holding – the Fourth Circuit’s judgment in the government’s favor would be left standing.

There was one way for them to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing the case. There is a long-established legal principle that if a case or controversy becomes moot while the case is pending, a court loses jurisdiction to rule.

Federal officials figured that if they transferred Padilla out of military custody, his habeas corpus proceeding would become moot because he would no longer be in military custody. That’s why they transferred him to federal-court jurisdiction – to render his case moot and thereby deny the Supreme Court the power to reverse the Fourth Circuit’s judgment.

The strategy succeeded. Ruling that the case was now moot, the Supreme Court declined to hear Padilla’s appeal, which left the Fourth Circuit’s judgment approving the government’s “enemy combatant” theory intact.

“Well, how come they’re not arresting, torturing, and executing lots of Americans then?” Because every government, even totalitarian ones, must pay attention to public opinion, and federal officials know that, under current circumstances, Americans might not countenance the arbitrary arrests, torture, and executions of large numbers of Americans.

But what every federal official, especially those in the military, knows is that they now wield one of the most powerful standby military powers in history: the omnipotent power to arbitrarily arrest, torture, and execute American citizens simply by labeling them “enemy combatants.” All that’s needed is the right “emergency” or “crisis” and this standby power can be unleashed on the American people – in the course of protecting them from the terrorists, of course.

It’s true that Americans still retain habeas corpus, given that the recently enacted Military Commissions Act canceled that centuries-old remedy for foreigners only. (The D.C. federal Court of Appeals recently upheld the constitutionality of the Act.) Americans would be unwise to rely on habeas corpus, however, to provide them any safety or security with respect to being labeled an “enemy combatant” and treated accordingly. As soon as an American “enemy combatant” files a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the government will quickly file its response showing that the prisoner is being held as an “enemy combatant” in time of “war,” citing the Fourth Circuit’s decision in the Padilla case upholding the “enemy combatant” designation as part of the ongoing “war on terrorism.” Given the long-established tradition of federal courts not to second-guess the president’s war-making decisions, it is a virtual certainty that no federal court will second-guess the president’s and the Pentagon’s “enemy combatant” determinations. The courts will very likely swiftly dismiss habeas corpus petitions brought by Americans who have been labeled “enemy combatants.”

While there is still a possibility that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the reasoning and holding of the Fourth Circuit, Americans would be unwise to depend on any such hope. For one thing, it would take at least a year or two for any case to reach the Supreme Court and be decided, and lots of Americans could be arrested, incarcerated, tortured, and executed within that time, especially if the right “emergency” or “crisis” were to send everyone into emotional hyperdrive. Equally important, given the increasingly conservative ideology of Supreme Court justices, there is a growing likelihood that a majority of the Court will side with the government anyway.

As an integral part of the federal government’s “war on terror,” which itself is an inexorable part of the government’s pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy, the U.S. military’s power to arrest, torture, and execute Americans is now reality. It is impossible to reconcile such power with the principles of a free society. As long as it exists, even if only as a standby power in the event of a “crisis” or “emergency, ” Americans cannot be considered a free people. It is the ultimate power that any government can wield over its citizens and, in fact, is a power wielded by such tyrannical regimes as those in Burma, Pakistan, China, North Korea, and Cuba. A necessary prerequisite for the restoration of a free society is its removal from the arsenal of federal powers.

[moeen yaseen]

TOO MUCH BLOOD: ON BEING THE SUBJECTS OF A MILITARY ECONOMY

Matt Taibbi
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17233.htm

"The fellas from 121 started showing up the other day. It's starting to sink in...I'll have to go home, the opportunities to kill these * is rapidly coming to an end. Like a hobby I'll never get to practice again. It's not a great war, but it's the only one we've got. God, I do love killing these b******...Morale is high, the Marines can smell the barn. It's hard to keep them focused. I still have 20 days of kill these *, so I don't wanna take even one day off. "

Letter home from an unnamed Marine F/A -18 pilot in Iraq




Rolling Stone" -- - -The above letter arrived in my inbox via an e-mail circular sent by an acquaintance of mine, a defense analyst and former congressional aide named Winslow Wheeler. It came alongside a pained commentary by another former Pentagon analyst named Franklin (Chuck) Spinney, who is probably best known for the famous "Spinney report" of the mid-80s that exposed the waste and inefficiency of many hi-tech defense department projects.

Spinney's career followed the classic whistleblower arc; after sending his courageous Jerry Maguire letter on Pentagon waste up the bureaucratic flagpole, he was nearly buried by his own bosses (who included David Chu and Cap Weinberger) only to be saved from ignominy at the last minute by the intercession of Senator Chuck Grassley, who invited him to air his findings in Congress. Spinney ended up on the cover of Time magazine a week later and soon thereafter began a new career as a much sought-after expert on the inner workings of the military-industrial complex. Like another famous post-Watergate whistleblower, Karen Silkwood, Spinney ended up inspiring a Hollywood feature film -- although in this case no Oscars were forthcoming, as the key role in the lighthearted comedy The Pentagon Wars was played by Cary Elwes instead of Meryl Streep. Brutally, Kelsey Grammer also made an appearance as the film's heavy.

Now retired and living in the Mediterranean, Spinney briefly returned to the States and somehow got hold of the above letter by a Marine pilot involved in close air support missions in Iraq. Spinney's commentary about the pilot ran as follows:

Here is a "warrior" who brags about killing for killing's sake, but the people he kills are just spots on the ground that disappear in clouds of explosions. He describes the joy of war at a distance and sees nothing of its horrors. You won't find any descriptions of blood, broken limbs, trauma or destruction in this e-mail. You won't even find reference to his own feelings of menace or fear -- not to mention their noble counterweights courage and esprit -- just braggadocio on the subject of killing. Of course, his targets are all insurgents: no sense of any human capacity for doubt on that point...Hopefully, the man who wrote this ghastly thing is an aberration and not at all representative of the men and women in our military.
I searched the Internet to see if anyone had anything to say about Spinney's commentary. There were only a few sites that mentioned it, but in this one he is predictably blasted by soldiers who viewed his comments as a betrayal.

"I'm surprised at Spinney's outburst," writes one. "I would have thought that as an AF guy, he'd at least understand the emotion of a fighter pilot doing a CAS mission. I've enjoyed Spinney's views on Pentagon finances -- maybe he should stick with his area of expertise."

"Spinney is pathetic!!!" writes another. "I'm a grunt, we get paid to kill and we do a damn good job. America has kept Marines around for that fact, and not because we look incredibly good in our dress blues."

I'm always wary of these stories about American soldiers acting like hateful, mindlessly violent psychopaths in Iraq, though they're not exactly rare -- from Abu Ghraib of course, to a chilling video of a pilot pointlessly wasting a huge crowd of what appear to be civilians in Fallujah ("Oh, dude!" the pilot chuckles, after the explosion appears to kill dozens), to a gang of squids in the Gulf who lined up on an aircraft carrier deck in a formation that cleverly read "* Iraq," to soldiers running over a cab driver's car with a tank because he was suspected of looting a few pieces of wood to stories about the use of napalm in Tallulah and so on.

It's not that I don't believe these stories, and not that I don't want to hear them. I'm just wary of sullying the debate over this war with a referendum on the behavior of young soldiers who have been placed in an impossible position, sent to fight in a strange and hostile place with no clear mission and no detectable strategy for securing peace or victory. In my mind, all the people in the Bush administration and in Congress and in the media who got these kids sent there in the first place have to be the first ones held responsible for whatever those kids do after being thrown into the fire. I just don't yet have the stomach to start pointing the finger at a bunch of teenagers and twentysomethings who never should have been sent there in the first place.

But the letter from this Marine pilot is something different. What worries me about it is this unabashed glee in killing people from high altitudes might not be a psychiatric aberration, but an inevitable consequence of the entire structure of our economy, which is based heavily on government spending in the area of high-technology defense manufacturing. When Spinney focuses on this gruesome and bloody letter from a single Marine pilot, he's not ripping an individual soldier but showing graphically how the tail has, by now, wagged the whole dog -- how a society whose economy is based on high-tech defense spending will first tend to gravitate inexorably toward high-tech defense solutions to policy problems, and then over time will raise whole generations instilled with an implicit belief in and enthusiasm for such lunacies as the "surgical strike." Here's how Spinney put it:

We all know that the American Way of War is to use our technology to pour firepower on the enemy from a safe distance. Implicit in this is the central myth of precision bombardment that dates back at least to the Norden Bombsight in World War II...Of course this is all hogwash, as the conduct of the Iraq War has proven once again. Real war is always uncertain and messy and bloody and wasteful and accompanied by profound psychological and moral effects. But these preposterous theories are central to the American Way of War, because they justify the maintenance of a high cost high-tech military which is so essential to the welfare of the parasitic political economy of the military-industrial-congressional complex that is now seamlessly embedded in our political culture.
The reason I'm even writing about Spinney's letter this week is that we're now just seeing come into focus the first outlines of the rhetorical parameters for the 2008 presidential campaign. Among other things, I'm seeing a lot of TV commentators pound home the theme that the Democratic party needs to shed its reputation for "pacifism." An article I saw about Rudy Giuliani last week saluted the former mayor for being sensible on Iraq without being a "peacenik." After four years of Iraq, we still can't talk about peace in public! This evil bs has been buried in the commercial media's descriptive campaign language seemingly forever by now, but it may be time -- in the wake of this Iraq disaster -- to start thinking about where it comes from and what effect it may have on the national psyche.

I believe that Marine pilot is driven by the same forces that render the presidential candidacy of someone like Dennis Kucinich impossible in America. A country that feeds itself through the manufacture of war technology is bound to view peace, nonviolence and mercy as seditious concepts. It will create policies first and then people to fit its machines, finding wars to fight and creating killers to fight them. If that's true of us, and I think it is, our troubles won't be over even if someone brings the Iraq war to an end. We'll be treating the symptom and not the disease. And the reason our elections are a sham is that the disease is never on the table. Excepting the occasional Kucinich, no one in either party is interested in trying to change who we are, no matter how sick we become.

[moeen yaseen]

AMERICA ON ITS KNEES BEFORE TYRANNY

Richard Mynick
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17231.htm

"The Star-Spangled Banner" painted the United States in 1814 as "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." These words, though still mumbled by apathetic consumers at sporting events, amount to a cruel satire of the American people in 2007.

The 4th sentence of the Declaration of Independence reads "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (ie, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." It would be hard to find a more apt description of the US government in 2007, or a more appropriate remedy for this oppressive regime, increasingly loathed and feared by the citizenry.

We have a Constitution which defines a separation of powers. It also defines procedures for impeaching officials who violate its bedrock principles -- in particular, its Bill of Rights, its separation of powers, and its foundational notion that power derives from the consent of the governed. We make elected officials swear an oath to "protect and defend" this Constitution. Why bother with all this, if, when the day of tyranny finally arrives, the Constitution's own provisions are not used to defend the document's principles against the would-be tyrants who have so egregiously violated them?

In November, US voters told Washington that the public does not support the war; sees with increasing clarity that it is immoral and was launched on false pretexts; and wants it terminated. In response, Vice-Emperor Cheney snarled in a TV interview with an obsequious Bush toady that regardless of what the public or Congress might say about it, the White House intends not only to continue the war, but to escalate it.

Let's examine this extraordinary position. Here is a top official of a "democracy" -- in a war marketed as an effort to "spread democracy" -- stating publicly & with imperial scorn that he and his co-conspirators have the right to order the US war machine to bombard and occupy any nation they wish to target, even if their war is launched under demonstrably false pretexts. They claim the right to compel the public to furnish lives and bodies to be killed and maimed in the war, and to bear the moral and financial burdens of the war, in an action which not incidentally lets administration allies in the "defense" and oil industries profit handsomely from the ensuing mayhem. Needless to say, from Cheney's viewpoint, it's also of no moment that the war violates the Nuremberg Principles and UN Charter forbidding aggressive war, and that the conduct of the war violates international accords to which the US is a signatory.

If that position does not constitute tyranny and abuse of power, what would? The "long train of abuses and usurpations" cited against King George in the Declaration of Independence was no worse an abuse of power than this. And nothing Britain ever did to its American colonies came anywhere near the monstrous outrages perpetrated by the US on modern-day Iraq.

The war in Iraq is not merely "the most serious foreign policy blunder in American history," as even members of the political establishment have conceded. It represents, rather, a crisis derived from the decaying framework of the US political system, posing the most fundamental question about the relationship between the rulers and ruled in this country. Though the Bush regime led the way, the war is the joint product of both parties and the corporate media -- that is, of the entire political establishment -- with each part playing its own supporting role.

It's not a question of "Well, if only Gore had won in 2000, we wouldn't be in this mess." The mess springs from the very structure of US society -- the unequal distribution of power among its social classes, its economic and political relations with the rest of the world, its ruling ideology. As errors go, there's an immense qualitative difference between a system malfunctioning because its framework is rotting, & the more limited type of error due to a component glitch within an otherwise healthy framework. The war in Iraq is the first type of malfunction: systemic.

The official forms of discourse in US society have degenerated to the point that they no longer permit acknowledgement -- or even mention -- of the main issues confronting us. The problems run too deep. The issues which must be discussed, because they're so important, cannot be discussed, because they're too threatening to the powers controlling the system.

The crises facing our society are like those an individual must confront, when events force upon him a choice of either internally acknowledging a dark & terrible truth about himself, or continuing in denial. The truth seems too terrible to bear -- so the denial continues, & the pressure of the crisis intensifies.

What would a genuine discussion of the issues look like?

If we were to attempt a genuine discussion of the Bush regime, one might formulate the main issues as these:



Is the regime legitimate? After all, it took office by what millions recognize was a stolen election enabled by a corrupt Supreme Court and the president's brother's political machine in Florida.

Is the regime guilty of massive war crimes? After all, they invaded a country that posed no threat to the US, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and have permanently destroyed Iraqi society in their rush to plunder its oil. (This, while not permitting the slightest acknowledgement that oil has anything to do with it.)

Is the regime guilty of high crimes against the Constitution? They have eavesdropped on millions of citizens. They torture detainees, many of whom are probably guilty of little more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They have repealed such basic democratic rights as habeas corpus, smeared political opponents, pandered to rightwing theocrats, stacked the judiciary & federal agencies with political cronies, and quietly sneaked into legislation passages making easier the declaration of martial law.

Is the regime a de facto dictatorship? After all, not only do they insist that the president can label anyone an "enemy combatant" and then disappear them; not only do they openly assert their belief in the "unitary executive;" they have also created an artificial state of permanent war, then claimed that a "nation at war" must grant its executive unlimited powers. They have openly claimed the right to wage war on anyone, even on false pretexts, using our bodies & tax dollars to feed a war machine owned by their cronies -- and added with sneering condescension that we have no say in any of this. Anyone who objects is a traitor! All this, in the name of "protecting Americans, freedom and democracy!"

The mainstream media are unwilling to even recognize the existence of such questions. Their comfort zones and expertise are better suited to "reporting" on the astronaut/love-triangle/diaper story, or the intriguing battles raging over Anna Nicole's corpse. There's a story in today's news that Iraq's cabinet has approved a draft of a new "oil law," which would largely turn control of Iraq's oil over to Western oil companies. But we know by now that Anna Nicole's corpse will get far more press in the days ahead, and that no media "analyst" will perceive any noteworthy connection between the new oil law and the Iraq War, originally launched because of imaginary WMD's. (That little boo-boo is regularly ascribed by the media to "flawed intelligence," an interesting phrase deserving further examination, if, against rising odds, we survive the next several months without a world-altering conflagration.)

What does it mean to "Support the Troops?"

In the giddy prosperity following WWII, it became commonplace in American culture to sneer contemptuously about the German soldiers who defended their wartime actions by claiming they were "just following orders." Underlying these sneers was the principle set forth at Nuremberg -- that a soldier has a moral responsibility to refuse to obey orders which their conscience tells them violate a higher ethical code.

In today's United States, however, courageous and principled soldiers like Lt. Ehren Watada, who try to do exactly what Americans sneered at German soldiers for not doing, are jailed, court-martialed, and summarily dismissed by the press as "insubordinate."

"Supporting the Troops" should mean supporting soldiers like Watada, and removing the troops from situations where they must kill or be killed in an unjust war. It should mean prosecuting the venal figures in Washington who have sent the troops on this criminal mission, and lied to the world about the reasons for it. Yet these same venal politicians, who won't even adequately fund medical facilities for maimed soldiers, shamelessly use the phrase "supporting the troops" as an argument for forcing them to continue fighting a war for oil and defense company profits.

The Treacherous Role of the Democrats

The Democrats gained control of Congress only by virtue of the fact that they are not Republicans, under conditions where the electorate instructed them to oppose Bush's deranged warmongering. Though "victorious," they immediately surrendered to the Republicans, taking "off the table" the only two measures which could possibly stop the US war drive: impeachment and cutting off funding for the war. They then wasted two months fussing ineffectually with non-binding resolutions of feeble disapproval (of the "surge," not the war itself), bleating pitifully to their Republican colleagues for "bipartisanship." Almost comically, the toothless Senate resolution didn't even make it to the floor for a vote. It should be clear from this performance that the Democrats, like the media, are terminally corrupt, and are in effect collaborating with the Bush regime against the voters who put them in office.

We have before us the spectacle of the Bush administration committing crimes which, if attempted by any foreign power, would rightly be met by torrential denunciation from Congress and the US media. But when the Bush administration commits these crimes, the media is basically supportive, while the Democrats make cynical pretenses of opposition. The Democrats' "criticism" usually amounts to complaining that Bush's crimes were clumsily executed or not entirely successful; and that had they been at the helm they could have pulled off the capers with more finesse.

Corruption is present to some degree in all governments, but the critical test of whether a government is beyond all salvation is whether it has the capacity to acknowledge great crimes committed by the leadership, and to rectify them. In today's Washington, however, the Democrats function as a buffer between the Bush regime and the increasingly angry population. On the one hand, the Democrats posture dishonestly as administration "critics"; on the other hand, they ensure that no serious effort is made to rein the criminals in -- not to mention bringing them to justice.

Rectifying the corruption should include restoration of the staggering wealth that in effect has been stolen from the American people, when Bush and Cheney ladled it out to their friends at Enron, Bechtel, Halliburton, the oil companies, and the other defense industries. The $400 million CEO severance packages, the billions in non-bid government contracts to defense companies and mercenaries, Cheney's own Halliburton stock options -- all this and more should be confiscated, and returned to the rightful possessors of that wealth. It should be clear that the Democrats would scarcely be able to comprehend what is being spoken of, here, let alone act as honorable advocates of its implementation.

Today's America is no democracy -- it's a degenerating tyranny, disfigured by its military-industrial-governmental cancer. Our people are increasingly ashamed and terrified of their government, and rightly so, because we have no control over it, and it's become a deceitful monstrous danger to us and to the health of the planet. We're not "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." To the contrary: We, the people, are on our knees, cringing and whimpering in dismay and confusion, prostrate before the forces that have betrayed us.
Richard Mynick is a Berkeley-based writer focusing on the intersection of media and politics. His essays have appeared on Online Journal, and he can be reached at richjm9@yahoo.com

[moeen yaseen]

THE SAUDIS LONG HISTORY OF INTRIGUE AGAINST THE ISLAMIC MOVEMENT

Guest Editorial – Abu Dharr
http://www.muslimedia.com/abudhar207.htm

There is probably no government in the world that has done greater harm and damage to the Muslims of the world than the one that presents itself as the Guardians of Makkah and Madinah. Yet much that is commonplace about this regime among those familiar with the Saudi government is little known elsewhere because people hesitate to say it in public. These issues need to be aired for the consideration of the Ummah, particularly at a time when the Saudis are again playing a deeply damaging role in the Ummah, in their support of the US campaigns in Iraq, against Islamic Iran and in the Middle East as a whole.

Much of this role depends, of course, on the Saudis’ financial power. However, the financial affairs of the Saudi royals are largely controlled by non-Muslims, especially “Christians” from the Middle East, and more particularly the “Christians” of Lebanon. That would not be a problem if this clannish kingdom were to abandon its claim of being the protector of the Haramain al-Shareefain and the cornerstone of Islam in modern days. However, the fact that the wealth of the Ummah is handed over to the control of people who clearly have no interest is using it for the benefit of the Ummah – at a time when many in the Ummah are in desperate need – is clearly incompatible with such a claim.

Moreover, even where the Saudis have put some of their wealth into the Islamic movement, it has been only as a distraction that has limited the freedom of action of the Islamic movement. Anyone who has been active in the Islamic movement knows that the money that comes from the Saudis to Islamic groups and organizations is ultimately designed to keep them on a tight leash and effectively thwart the higher ambitions of the Islamic movement. The petrodollars (and riyals and pounds) coming out of the Saudi establishment have, to a large extent, tied the tongues and silenced the voices of revolutionary Islamic movements. The unspoken word is: Saudi Arabia is the graveyard of the du‘at.

Even where the Saudis have appeared to support Islamic movements, as when they apparently supported an attempt at an Islamic uprising in Syria a generation ago, they have had ulterior motives. At that time, as we all may recall, the Islamic Revolution and State in Iran were in full swing, and the Syrian Ikhwan, involved in the Hama uprising in February 1982 against a regime that was anti-Western and had relations with Iran, were overtly anti-Shi‘i. Saudi financial support for the Ikhwan was a no-lose situation: if the uprising succeeded, it would have installed an “Islamic” regime that (the Saudis hoped) would be anti-Iran and would support the Saudis; and if it failed, as it did, thanks to the Ba’athist regime’s brutal response (up to 20,000 people in Hama were massacred), Muslim public opinion around the world would criticise the Islamic State of Iran for its links with Syria. The latter is precisely what happened; to this day, many Ikhwan supporters refuse to support Iran, citing the Hama massacre, but ignoring the question of why Iran should have supported a movement that regarded Shi‘i Muslims as kuffar. Such unfortunately are the situations that arise once the poison of sectarianism contaminates the Ummah.

Over two decades later, the same sectarianism is fueling the chaos in Iraq, and this time the Saudi princes and politicians are no longer operating on their own. Now they are just a part of the team put together by masterminds of American imperial colonialism, to manipulate the situation in Iraq to their advantage, despite their failure to assert control militarily. And what was true of the Syrian case is certainly true today as well: that Islamic Iran is the main target of Israeli and American plotting. The US invasion of Iraq was a central plank of the establishment of an American military presence in every country bordering Iran. The US’s local interests in Iraq apart – it will not ignore the opportunity to take control of Iraq’s oil wealth – its longer-term object is to bring down the Islamic State and strike a massive blow against the wider Islamic movement. But the war against Islamic self-determination has not been without price, which is catching up with the Washingtonian duopoly of Republicans and Democrats. Both are equally committed to this war against the Islamic movement, but neither knows how to do it without spending ten billion dollars and sustaining hundreds of casualties (killed and injured) every month, with no end in sight.

The Aal-e Saud are central to this new round of warfare, as plotted by conservative and not-so-conservative thinktanks in the US. Iraq is just one of many places where American-controlled Saudi Arabia is working to destabilize the Islamic movement and the Islamic state, and to damage Sunni-Shi’i relations. In Lebanon, the Saudis are backing the ineffectual government of Sa‘d al-Hariri, Fu‘ad Siniora, and Samir Ja’ja’, which last summer could not even defend its own territory and sovereignty, and is hanging on in power thanks to United Nations forces, promises of funds from the West, and – most important of all – the Saudi-American promises that Lebanon will be taken out of the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation. The Saudis are also trying to prise Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic movement, and Hizbullah, the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, from the influence of Islamic Iran. Bandar al-Sultan, the pivotal figure in its relations with the US, has expressed willingness to funnel Saudi resources to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Popular Resistance Committees and any other Palestinian faction that is willing to “jump the Iranian ship” and join the Saudi bandwagon. (This is, remember, the former Saudi ambassador to Washington who boasted on national television of his cooperation with the CIA.) It is not clear whether our Palestinian brothers, concerned as they are with immediate problems, are aware of the larger picture; we pray that they will not fall into the Saudi trap.

In the mean time, we also hope that our brothers in the Islamic state, and those elsewhere who are aware of the significance of the Islamic Revolution in Iran for contemporary Islamic history, are wise to the agenda of ‘Abdullah, Bandar and company. The voices that are carping against president Mahmud Ahmadinejad from within the Muslim world are, whether they realize it or not, part of the Saudi-American orchestra. The Saudis’ hands are anything but clean in the Lebanese, Palestinian and Iraqi theaters. Many Muslims seem to have forgotten the Saudis’ initial involvement in the Lebanese civil war on the side of the pro-zionist Phalange forces and the Saudi hostility to Arab solidarity through their involvement in Yemeni affairs throughout the 1950s and 1960s. The Saudis also played a crucial intermediary role between Washington and Baghdad when Saddam Hussain’s Ba‘athist regime in Iraq went to war against the nascent Islamic state under the leadership of Imam Khomeini (ra). Have the Muslims forgotten the routine pronouncements of takfir by Saudi-sponsored religious officials against other Muslims, even as they themselves worked hand-in-glove with the imperialists and zionists? Not to mention the systematic prejudice and discrimination that oppressed and hard-working Muslims from Africa and Asia face working in the Saudi kingdom, even as Western expatriates are treated like royalty? And let us not forget the Saudis’ long-established practice of manipulating the price of oil at the behest of American ‘educated’ advisers in the corridors of OPEC.

Little wonder that many Muslims regard the Saudis as no better than the zionists; and that the West regards them as models of the ‘moderation’ they would like from all Muslims.

[moeen yaseen]

BUSH PRESSES ON WITH WAR PLANS DESPITE INCREASING OPPOSITION

Zafar Bangash
http://www.muslimedia.com/bush-warplan.htm

While members of the UN Security Council were preparing to meet in London on February 26 to discuss what further steps they could take against Iran after the expiry of the UN’s illegal demand for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, Western diplomats in Vienna revealed on February 22 that US intelligence about Iran’s nuclear facilities had turned out to be false.

Observers were quick to make comparisons with the US’s allegations in 2002-2003 against Iraq about its alleged weapons of mass destruction, which were used as a pretext for invasion. The occupation of Iraq has turned into an unmitigated disaster, but the warlords in Washington are not deterred from inflicting suffering on other people or even their own. This explains why they are so keen to lock horns with Islamic Iran on an equally spurious pretext, despite US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice claiming on February 22 on CNN that “the United States has no desire to lock horns with Iran and is still ready for talks if Tehran halts its controversial nuclear activities.”

What is so controversial about Iran’s nuclear programme Ms Rice did not explain. Iran is operating within its rights under the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium. Nobody has proved otherwise; the US’s demand that Iran abandon uranium enrichment amounts to unilateral rewriting of NPT’s rules. This is motivated by the US agenda for domination of the region to prevent any regional state from emerging to challenge Israel’s hegemony. The US alleges that Iran is using its nuclear programme to make nuclear weapons. Tehran strenuously denies these allegations and insists that its programme is strictly peaceful—to generate electricity—and is carried out within the terms of the NPT, which it signed in 1968.

US-Tehran relations have been in the deep freeze since the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. The US intensified its anti-Iran propaganda in 2003 after its invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Iraqi adventure was supposed to be a launch-pad for the invasion of Iran to bring about “regime change”—the new mantra of America’s warlords (better known as neocons). They have arrogated to themselves the right to determine who should be in power in other countries, and are doing their impose their preferences on peoples who refuse to cooperate.

In order to assuage international concerns, Iran entered into negotiations with Britain, France and Germany to find a negotiated solution to the West’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. To demonstrate its good faith, Iran not only voluntarily halted all enrichment activity in October 2003 but also agreed to additional safety protocols, with the clear proviso that these were temporary measures and that the Europeans must negotiate in good faith and find a solution to Iran’s legitimate concerns. The Europeans began to string Iran along, insisting that it must not resume enrichment otherwise negotiations would be terminated. For more than two years they failed to produce any genuine proposals, only putting forward take-it-or-leave-it type demands. Tired of these tactics, Iran announced that it would resume its uranium-enrichment activities, but still did not go ahead until IAEA inspectors had turned on surveillance cameras at its nuclear facilities in January 2006.

Iran’s legitimate activity sent the West into a frenzy of anger. How could any country dare defy their demands, no matter how ridiculous? It was such bullying and the West’s arrogance that led to the Security Council resolution of December 23, 2006, threatening sanctions against Iran if it did not give up enrichment within two months. The council has no authority to prohibit Iran from doing so, and the IAEA has not been able to provide any evidence of Iran’s wrongdoing or violation of its treaty obligations. The report submitted by the IAEA to the council on February 21 stated that Iran had “not stopped enrichment” activity as demanded by the “international community”. The Americans fumed that Iran was thumbing its nose at the international community, and threatened further dire consequences. The moves clearly expose the true nature of the security council, as well as of the IAEA, as tools of the West (in particular the US), which pompously calls itself the “international community” as if the rest of humanity does not matter.

What do the Americans and their Western allies think about the latest IAEA revelations that most of the information about secret weapon-sites provided by the CIA and other American intelligence agencies had led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, and were therefore clearly bogus?

“Most of it [intelligence] has turned out to be incorrect,” said a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency’s investigations. “They [US intelligence operatives] gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities”, according to a report in the Guardian of London on February 23. The US and its allies are obviously not constrained or abashed by the lies they are caught telling; these are an essential part of their policy, repeated endlessly to hoodwink their own gullible people into believing their propaganda.

“Now [the inspectors] don’t go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test,” one IAEA official was quoted as saying. One particularly laughable allegation related to Iran’s plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who took up the matter with Tehran. The latter vigorously denied the allegation and said the material was forged. IAEA officials have now admitted that the alleged clandestine-warhead programme could not be real since it would not be “put on laptops which can walk away,” to quote one IAEA official. Besides, “the data is all in English, which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you’d have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer.”

Members of the Security Council are divided over what to do next, despite the US pushing for tougher sanctions. “We should not lose sight of the goal, and the goal is not to have a [security council] resolution or to impose sanctions,” Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the UN, said. “The goal is to accomplish a political outcome to this problem.” This is not what the Americans have in mind; their real problem is that Iran is defying them, no matter how ludicrous or illegitimate their demands. “The Iranian nation has resisted all bullies and corrupt powers, and it will fully defend all its rights,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said in response to US threats.

Whether the US will succeed in pushing tougher sanctions through the Security Council, and whether it will then use these as a basis to attack Iran are moot points. One thing is certain: while the US has enormous capacity for inflicting damage on other countries, it does not have much stomach for taking punishment itself. Unlike Iraq, which had been weakened by many years of sanctions, Iran has the capability to strike back at US interests. Should the US make the mistake of attacking Iran, it would find itself confronted by a formidable opponent that not only has the capacity to absorb punishment but also to deliver it in large doses.

Uncle Sam would be well advised not to push his luck too far, or he will be driven right out of the Middle East. Besides, people in the US and Europe would have to say goodbye to their comfortable lifestyles, which are derived from resources plundered from other countries for decades. George W. Bush stupidly wishes to destroy all this because he believes he has a messianic right to set the world’s agenda.

[moeen yaseen]

THE US's DEMONISATION OF ISLAMIC IRAN

Zafar Bangash
http://www.muslimedia.com/reflect0307.htm

Muslims struggling for peace and justice will continue to face many challenges, but perhaps none more difficult than the propaganda against them in the West. Even as the lies spun by the Western media, in cooperation with their governments, about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 2002-2003 have been exposed, more lies are churned out against Iran. Its peaceful nuclear programme is being projected as a threat to world peace, while the US has assembled an armada in the Persian Gulf to threaten and possibly attack Iran. The fact that the consequences of such an attack would be catastrophic not only for Muslims but also for the West is being played down. Few in the West have pointed out the hypocrisy of US threats to use nuclear weapons to prevent Tehran from “acquiring” such weapons. Iran’s repeated denials and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s failure to find proof of Tehran’s wrongdoing are considered irrelevant. Nor is much said about Israel’s nuclear weapons or the US’s plan to provide nuclear technology to India, which has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

In the long list of US allegations, the latest relates to Iranian weapons “found” in Iraq based on the usual “anonymous” US sources. This is presented as evidence of Iran’s meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs. That Iraqis and Iranis share common religious, cultural and historical experiences is brushed aside by the Americans, who themselves have meddled murderously in Iraq’s affairs for decades. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal and the US occupation is opposed by virtually all Iraqis; but few in the US know this, thanks to their mendacious media.

There is an even more insidious campaign underway: the demonization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. He is accused of having stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. While there is nothing inherently sacred about any state—after all, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have all disappeared in the last two decades—the quote attributed to him is neither new nor accurate. In a speech he delivered at a conference in Tehran in October 2005, he quoted Imam Khomeini’s statement that said, “the Quds occupying regime will disappear from the pages of time.” President Ahmedinejad repeated this statement while also refering to the disappearance of the Soviet Union. This misquoted sentence has been repeated endlessly to create the impression that Iran poses an immediate, genocidal threat to Israel and its Jewish population. That numerous Israeli leaders have made far more serious threats against Iran is considered of little consequence.



There is a clear pattern to US propaganda. When the US plans to attack a country, it first launches a campaign of demonization of its leaders. In Iraq, Saddam Husain was projected as “the new Hitler”, although only after he invaded and occupied Kuwait in August 1990. Until then, he was a trusted friend and ally. Now this same provocative label is being applied to President Ahmedinejad. The US has turned propaganda into an art-form.



Iran’s real fault is that its people overthrew a corrupt and brutal US-backed dictatorship 28 years ago. The Shah was maintained in power because he did the West’s bidding—pumping as much oil as the West demanded and using that money to buy outdated weapons from the West. After the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, the US tried every trick in its arsenal to undermine the Islamic state, without success. These ranged from attempting military coups and using its agents within the government—Bani Sadr, Sadeq Qutbzadeh et. al.—to the campaign of assassinations in which thousands of people, including leading figures of the Revolution, were martyred. One of the ironies of current US policy is that while the state department maintains the Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization on its list of terrorist organizations, its members are protected by the US military in Iraq and given weapons and training to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran.

The question now is whether the US will attack Iran, and if so, when? An attack on Iran has been on the US agenda for a very long time; what is less certain is the timing. With scepticism over Washington’s allegations against Iran growing in light of the Iraqi allegations and the unmitigated disaster that Iraq has become, there are serious divisions within the US establishment on this issue. While Bush and his neocon allies would like to shoot their way out of Baghdad by bombing Iran, other members of the establishment see this as dangerous adventurism. They are not concerned about the plight of the victims of their aggression; their concern springs from the fact that such an attack would have catastrophic consequences for US interests in the region. With anti-US sentiment reaching unprecedented levels all over the world, and Bush’s domestic approval ratings plummeting, many Americans are suggesting that prudence would be wise.

Are Bush and his neocon allies likely to heed such advice? That depends on whether they are capable of making rational judgements. On past performance, it would not be sensible to expect very much. Tehran would be well advised to prepare for the worst-case scenario, and demonstrate their readiness publicly, in the hope that Iran and the US can still be saved from the neo-cons’ stupidity.

[moeen yaseen]

AFGHANISTAN - THE NEXT PHASE

Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi
http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles/Art069_11022007.html


Afghanistan will prove to have been America’s third and final Vietnam.

France preceded the USA in Vietnam, and its defeat there was swiftly followed by disgrace in Algeria.

Russia preceded the USA in Afghanistan and its defeat there was swiftly followed by the collapse of the Communist State. To rescue France, de Gaulle – who saw that France’s enemy was not a State but a financial system – sold the country’s dollars and ordered the adoption of a gold-based monetary system. His argument was its rationality and historicity. It was necessary to depose him, and the mythic ’68 Uprising was staged to force him from office. The financiers’ place man, Pompidou, Rothschild’s cousin, took over as President and in symbolic demonstration of their new statal (leveraged buy-out) power the old jewish ghetto was turned into Paris’ most expensive real estate, and a new financial quarter was built at La Défense.

Russia’s retreat from Afghanistan led directly to the utter collapse of the Russian economy and central government. The financiers’ place man, Yeltsin, handed over the commodity-wealth of the country, lock, stock and barrel to a handful of poised adventurers, mostly but not all jewish, who became known to the world as the Oligarchs.

The American strategy in Afghanistan has proved more cunning than in its previous imperial adventures but presaged an even greater disaster. As in all these dreadful events it is the common people and the receptor nation which suffer. None of this could have happened if the American people had been able to understand and prevent what took place. Unfortunately, the Americans are the most schooled and least educated nation on earth. Numbed and dumb from media overflow, isolated in a Hollywood fantasy they called ‘The American Dream’, its people remain cut off from mankind, indifferent both to their suffering and the destruction of the planet.

At the heart of the American fatal sickness is, of course, as so many great 20th century thinkers warned, the disaster of the Constitution. The indefensible system of structuration and webbing of Committees and Councils and Ministries has reduced government to taxation, and security to a set of tyrannical practices from civic surveillance to mass penitentiary punishment. As a result the ghastly rhetoric of Congress is separated by an abyss from the inundation of New Orleans. Congress calls for withdrawal from Iraq and the draft-dodging President sends in more troops, declaring “I am the Commander-in-Chief.” Thus, multi-party democracy is itself, dictatorship.

The ur-phenomenon, the global epidemic from which all these miseries stem, is the irrational usury finance system that in its final capitalist phase is daily reducing a world population to a downward spiral of poverty and police control, and the planet itself to a new Ice Age.

The abolition of trade through its reduction into distribution, the stasis of banking finance which only is distributive in gesture, never in substance, and remains acquisitive in definition – these imposed restraints on wealth have resulted in a demographic world crisis which the political class are helpless to prevent.

The South American poor are moving into Mexico. Both are now pouring into America. Mexican restaurants are popping up in Canadian Inuit villages. Central Africa’s tribal mass, shattered by one family’s limitless greed which gives them the world diamond monopoly, has seen the Angolan and Congolese poor flood into Berber North Africa. Robbed of menial tasks by this African immigration, the Berber have flooded into the European Union. Horrified at the prospect of an Islamic Europe, as the indigenous population, given the abolition of the family, have a higher death than birth rate, they thus find themselves obliged to extend the Union to three impoverished countries, Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria. This in turn has seen a massive influx from them into Britain and Europe, the result of which has left these countries devoid of their base work-force. To fill the gap the Chinese are flooding into Eastern Europe as they have already done in West Africa.

Obsessed with the all but inexistent terrorists, Bin Laden dead and only a handful of people from the detritus of city poverty sticking Semtex in their shoes and fertiliser in their basements, and busy arresting innocent Muslims as ‘suspects’, the once renowned British Secret Services failed to notice that Russian agents were entering Britain with nuclear material to put markers on anti-State activists and rogue oligarchs. Only when one of the marked men died from an accidental overdose were the utterly uninformed Secret Services forced to take account.

The phantom ‘War on Terror’ which held both the Bush and Blair dictatorships in place left their countries unprotected from the brilliant expansion programmes of both Russia and China. As of today the largest and most ignominious enactment of the fantasy project pretends a metaphysical ‘War on Terror’, while in reality it is a desperate programme to hinder an Islamic renewal knowing that such an event will simply lead to an abandonment of paper currencies and the world usury system of banking. The strategy of the banking elite was to re-define the world’s final and greatest religion as its opposite, and to destroy it completely by making its mass of people accept that if it was not Terror it was a passive individualist slave Tolerance.

The epicentre of this strategy is today in Afghanistan/Pakistan – in historical and geographic reality ONE COUNTRY with a dominant Islamic Pushtu culture.

To veil the iniquity of the occupation of its people the USA defined its mission as a Nato operation, thus inhibiting the States involved from pulling out their troops one by one as they had done in Iraq. The protocols of Nato make it practically impossible to rescind an obligation to its Treaty requirements. More sinister even than that is the bitter reality facing the occupied country.

No country can bring Nato into its sovereign national court. No personnel of Nato can be arrested and tried by a country under their occupation. In Bosnia the Nato general charged with rape was simply airlifted to Canada under their protection. It follows from this that no genocide, no murder, no torture, nor any other crime can be laid at its door. It is simply above the law. The US ploy of designing their occupation of Afghanistan as a Nato operation gave them carte blanche for a totalitarian control of the country. With its quisling puppet in Kabul they could pretend to a ‘democratic’ framework to what was a brutal and destructive tyranny. No occupational army in recorded history since the Roman Empire but has set up brothels and prostitution to cater for its men. It would be absurd to suggest this is not being provided for the occupying army, bearing in mind US sexual approval of same-sex activity. Not one single TV station, not one press reporter, not one NGO has examined the matter of the prostitution of a generation of Afghan youth, to satisfy the occupiers’ appetites.

The hypnotic obedience of the other Nato States to this programme of lawless terror and destruction, accompanied on a daily basis by bombing raids and the slaughter of local populations, indicates that it is not just the USA but the European Union which is descending into the final stage of a failed social order. The democratic political system has ended in a multi-national demonstration of its inability to protect moral values, justice and its own law system since its own wealth and commodities nexus is outside governmental jurisdiction. The financial sect command the national government, constraining the political class to follow its orders. Promotion upwards in today’s world leads from the political class to the financial class. Wolfowitz went from the State Department’s Defence Ministry, upwards to his reward, as Head of the World Bank.

The promise of the NGOs and missionaries that soon Afghan women will be free to walk in public in Western clothes and dress in sequins and feathers in order to come down a staircase, bare-breasted in Kabul and Herat casino cabarets has proved surprisingly unattractive. The promise that the Islamic Madrasahs will be abolished and Afghan kids will be free to shoot their teachers and schoolmates like in the many Columbine episodes in the US has proved surprisingly unattractive. When an Afghan village is cluster-bombed the local population describe it as having had a ‘hearts-and-minds’ in mockery of Nato’s pretended claim to a policy to win hearts and minds. People are not stupid – politicians are.

There is not, however, an Afghan problem. The issue of the future in political terms is no longer régime-change – it is frontier-change. History IS frontier-change, and despite the dream that history is ended, history is events following events. Frontiers must change. While the USA indulges in its futile bid for empire on the other side of the world, Mexico is quietly regaining its lost territories in Texas, Arizona and California. Frontiers change.

The Afghan affair can only be satisfied from Islamabad. Pakistan is faced with three possible scenarios.

1] Disappearance. It is divided into regions, and these in turn are absorbed into a greater Hindu sub-continent common market. This is the banking élite’s strategy, prefigured in 1947 with the deliberate theft of Kashmir in the north, and Muslim Calcutta in the south.

2] Fragmentation. This is the Kissinger Plan which has already been pre-empted in Indonesia by the re-integration of Acheh into the greater Muslim nation. In Pakistan it implies separating the Pathan people to buffer Afghan activity, a Baluchistan given ‘Luxembourg’ independence, Sind as a functioning bank-controlled south and Punjab territory as the heartland.

3] Expansion. This is the dreaded third possibility. It would mean success for Pakistan and an opening to the north. It would necessarily require the removal of the dictator Musharraf, the Darling of Democracy. It would require the Pakistan Army to take on its historic and indeed Mughal destiny as guardians of the Nation. Its last element would be the disappearance of the British invention Afghanistan, with its absurd Southern frontier a straight line drawn through the Himalayan range. These two geographic zones have been one since Mahmud al-Ghazni all these centuries ago. The natural ally and defender of this reality is Russia and that can heal the recent enmity as France and Germany did after their war.

This holds the only promise of stability in the region. The USA, and indeed Europe should not be in the region. They should start paying attention to the reality that they themselves are quietly being annexed by China.

[moeen yaseen]

THE TRILLION DOLLAR DEFENSE BUDGET IS ALREADY HERE

Dr. Robert Higgs
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=200703 15&articleId=5088

When President George W. Bush presented his budget proposals recently for the fiscal year 2008, he emphasized that the nation’s security is his highest priority, and he backed up that declaration by proposing that the Pentagon’s outlays be increased by more than 6 percent beyond its estimated outlays for fiscal 2007, to a total of more than $583 billion. Although many Americans regard this enormous sum as excessive, hardly anyone appreciates that the total amount of all defense-related spending greatly exceeds the amount budgeted for the Department of Defense. Indeed, it is roughly almost twice as large.

In the fiscal year 2006, which ended last September, the Pentagon spent $499.4 billion. Lodged elsewhere in the budget, however, other lines identify funding that serves defense purposes just as surely as—sometimes even more surely than—the money allocated to the Department of Defense. On occasion, commentators take note of some of these additional defense-related budget items, such as the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons programs, but many such items, including some extremely large ones, remain generally unrecognized.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, many observers probably would agree that its budget ought to be included in any complete accounting of defense costs. After all, the homeland is what most of us want the government to defend in the first place.

Other agencies also spend money in pursuit of homeland security. The Justice Department, for example, includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which devotes substantial resources to an anti-terrorist program. The Department of the Treasury informs us that it has “worked closely with the Departments of State and Justice and the intelligence community to disrupt targets related to al Qaeda, Hizballah, Jemaah Islamiyah, as well as to disrupt state sponsorship of terror.”

Much, if not all, of the budget for the Department of State and for international assistance programs ought to be classified as defense-related, too. In this case, the money serves to buy off potential enemies and to reward friendly governments who assist U.S. efforts to abate perceived threats. About $4.5 billion of annual U.S. foreign aid currently takes the form of “foreign military financing,” and even funds placed under the rubric of economic development may serve defense-related purposes indirectly. Money is fungible, and the receipt of foreign assistance for economic-development projects allows allied governments to divert other funds to police, intelligence, and military purposes.

Two big budget items represent the current cost of defense goods and services obtained in the past. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is authorized to spend more than $72 billion in the current fiscal year, falls in this category. Likewise, a great deal of the government’s interest expense on publicly held debt represents the current cost of defense outlays financed in the past by borrowing from the public.

To estimate the size of the entire de facto defense budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2006, the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available. In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent $499.4 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added $16.6 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $69.1 billion. The Department of State and international assistance programs laid out $25.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had outlays of $69.8 billion. The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known Military Retirement Fund, added $38.5 billion. A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only indirectly so. When all of these other parts of the budget are added to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2006 total by nearly half again, to $728.2 billion.

To find out how much of the government’s net interest payments on publicly held national debt ought to be attributed to past debt-funded defense spending requires a considerable amount of calculation. I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year’s ratio of narrowly defined national security spending—military, veterans, and international affairs—to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 91.2 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2006. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government’s net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending. The total amount so attributed comes to $206.7 billion.

Adding this interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $934.9 billion, which is more than 87 percent greater than the Pentagon’s outlays alone.

If the additional elements of defense spending continue to maintain the same ratio to the Pentagon’s amount—and we have every reason to suppose they will—then in fiscal year 2007, through which we are now passing, the grand total spent for defense will be $1.028 trillion. I confirmed the rough accuracy of this forecast by adding up the government’s own estimates of fiscal 2007 outlays for the various additional defense-related items, obtaining a total of $987 billion—an amount only 4 percent less than my ratio-based estimate. Future defense-related supplemental appropriations for fiscal 2007, which would hardly be surprising, might easily bring the lower estimate up the higher one.

Although I have arrived at my conclusions honestly and carefully, I may have left out items that should have been included—the federal budget is a gargantuan, complex, and confusing collection of documents. If I have done so, however, the left-out items are not likely to be relatively large ones. (I have deliberately ignored some minor items, such as the outlays of the Selective Service System and the National Defense Stockpile and the Treasury’s program to block financial flows to terrorists.) Therefore, I propose that in considering future defense budgetary costs, a well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon’s (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it. We may overstate the truth, but if so, we’ll not do so by much.

For now, however, the conclusion seems inescapable: the government is currently spending at the rate of approximately $1 trillion per year for all defense-related purposes. Moreover, even if I have erred in my calculations and overstated the correct amount somewhat, the total will certainly reach this astonishing sum very soon, given all the plans and programs already set in motion.

National Security Outlays in Fiscal Year 2006
(billions of dollars)
Department of Defense 499.4
Department of Energy (nuclear weapons & environ. cleanup) 16.6
Department of State 25.3
Department of Veterans Affairs 69.8
Department of Homeland Security 69.1
Department of Justice (1/3 of FBI) 1.9
Department of the Treasury (for Military Retirement Fund) 38.5
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (1/2 of total) 7.6
Net interest attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays 206.7
Total 934.9

Source: Author’s classifications and calculations; basic data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970.


Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy for The Independent Institute and Editor of the Institute’s quarterly journal The Independent Review. He has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University, and a fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation. He is the author of many books, including Depression, War, and Cold War.

[moeen yaseen]

LONDON's CAYMAN ISLANDS:THE EMPIRE OF THE HEDGE FUNDS

Richard Freeman
EIR 2007

On Feb. 27, the world's hedge funds, through their manipulation and miscalculation of the yen carry-trade, led to a violent unwinding of that carry-trade, which triggered disintegration of the world financial structure. Stock exchanges fell, from the Dow Jones exchange in the United States, to China's Shanghai composite index, to Brazil's Bovespa index, shedding more than $1.5 trillion in paper losses. Secondary incidents contributed to setting off the downturn. But hedge funds had already bled the major international commercial banks and corporations into absolute bankruptcy, and had leveraged borrowed funds and derivatives into the biggest financial tumor ever. That, combined with their yen carry-trade role, amplified the effect of the secondary incidents, and is now driving the financial system further into systemic breakdown.

And where are those hedge funds? Though they may have offices in locations like Greenwich, Connecticut, or New York City, 8,282 out of the total of 9,800 hedge funds operating at the end of the third quarter 2006 worldwide, were registered in the Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory, run like a dictatorship by a Royal Governor appointed by Queen Elizabeth II, with a total population of 57,000 people.

There is good reason for this. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) is supposed to "regulate" the hedge funds, but instead runs a protection racket for their derivatives trading and tax sheltering. The CIMA gives each hedge fund, at registration, a 100-year exemption from any taxes; shelters the fund's activity behind a wall of official secrecy; allows the fund to self-regulate; and prevents other nations from regulating the funds by insisting on first and final authority in this area.

And the remainder of the world's hedge funds, not registered in the Cayman Islands? Most are registered in other British Overseas Territories and satrapies, such as the Bahamas, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, and the Isle of Man.

Global Financial Oligarchy's Instrument

Since mid-January, forces internationally—ranging from the Danish government, to German Vice Chancellor Franz Müntefering (who has famously labeled hedge funds "locusts"), to U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)—have directed initiatives geared to regulating, and potentially bringing under control the predatory activities of the world's hedge funds. For his efforts, Müntefering was outrageously attacked on Feb. 14 by the German edition of the Financial Times, the London financier oligarchy's mouthpiece, as an "anti-Semite."

The Müntefering, Levin, and other initiatives, though reflecting a well-intentioned impulse, don't recognize the real nature of the beast; accordingly, they will not solve the problem. For the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, closely intertwined banks and hedge funds are its foremost instruments of power, to control the financial system, and loot and devastate companies and nations. Recognizing that this financial system is fracturing, the oligarchy will go to general nuclear war against Iran, Russia, and China, rather than lose its instruments of power. Therefore, it is impossible to think of hedge-fund reform in the United States, or in Germany, because the real source of power of hedge funds in these countries, lies outside in the Cayman Islands, ensconced in a fortified shell. Leaders such as Müntefering or Levin, must be prepared to break the power of the Cayman Islands—which means the death grip of the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, if they are to achieve anything of value at all.

This oligarchy made changes in the Cayman Islands so that the hedge-fund "slime-mold" would find hospitable grounds for growth. The hedge funds' growth in the Caymans, in turn, fueled their growth internationally.

The three island specks in the Caribbean Sea, 480 miles south from Florida's southern tip—which came to be known as the Caymans, after the native word for crocodile (caymana)—had for centuries been a basing area for pirates who attacked trading vessels.

Though under British rule for centuries, the Caymans officially became a British Crown Colony in 1971, though later the term was changed to the euphemistic moniker British Overseas Territory; then as now, Queen Elizabeth II rules firmly, appointing the Islands' Governor, etc.

In 1993, the decision was made to turn this tourist trap into a major financial power, through the adoption of a Mutual Funds Law, to enable the easy incorporation and/or registration of hedge funds in a deregulated system. (Technically, a hedge fund is a type of mutual fund, but not your grandfather's type.*) According to a firm that incorporates hedge funds, "The Mutual Fund Law was established ... to position the Cayman Islands as a hub in the financial industry."

According to representatives of Charles Adams, Ritchie & Duckworth, a Cayman Islands law firm that is involved in the hedge-fund business, the Cayman Islands offer prospective hedge funds:

* "No regulatory restriction on investment policies or strategies, commercial terms ... , or choice of service providers....

* "Tax-neutral environment with no direct corporation, capital gains, income, profits or withholding taxes applicable to funds" (emphasis added).

The ease of setting up a hedge fund was brought home in a telephone discussion with a member of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, which is charged with "regulating" them. From the day of application, it takes but two to five days for a hedge fund to be approved, and costs $3,600 in total fees, a mere drop in the bucket. To invest in a hedge fund, an investor must put up at least $100,000. From then onward, the hedge fund must produce an annual account, audited by a Caymans local accountant. If one recalls how Arthur Andersen LLP and other accountants carried out audits in recent years, it is apparent that this does not have to be a high hurdle.

The only information that the CIMA will release about a hedge fund, is that it is registered, and where its registered office is. The names of investors and other minimal information are kept strictly secret. Since the Cayman Islands have no tax laws, the CIMA shares little or no information with other nations' authorities on tax matters. On other matters, it is up to the CIMA whether it will "share or divulge information."

On the whole, neither the United States' Securities and Exchange Commission, nor other countries' regulatory bodies, have any regulatory authority over hedge funds. Moreover, neither the SEC, nor other bodies, have pierced the CIMA's armor.

The 1993 Mutual Fund Law had its effect: with direction from the City of London, the number of hedge funds operating in the Cayman Islands exploded: from 1,685 hedge funds in 1997, to 8,282 at the end of the third quarter 2006, a fivefold increase. Cayman Island hedge funds are four-fifths of the world total. Globally, hedge funds hold $1.44 trillion in assets under management, but through using leverage of anywhere from 5 to 20 times, they command up to $30 trillion of deployable funds.

But the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy built an entire financial superstructure on the Cayman Islands. Aside from the Caymans' huge holdings of hedge-fund assets, the Islands' banking system possesses assets of $1.41 trillion (though this includes some overlap with the hedge fund assets). The offshore, unregulated Cayman Islands has the fourth-largest banking system in the world—after those of the United Stats, Japan, and Britain. Compare: The United States has 300 million people, the Cayman Islands has 57,000.

The Cayman Islands also is the world's number-two jurisdiction for captive insurance companies (a type of limited-purpose, and increasingly speculative insurance company). Cayman licensees hold $29.6 trillion in assets.

The Queen's Men

To have the Caymans function as an epicenter for globalization and financial warfare, the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy hand-selected the top Cayman officials.

* Since late 2005, the Governor of the Islands, approved by the office of the Queen, is Stuart Duncan Jack, a career officer of the British Foreign Office. For his service, Jack was knighted Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, a chivalric order founded by Queen Victoria, which ranks above that of the Order of the British Empire.

* Timothy Ridley, the chairman of the vital Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, is a lawyer who was knighted as a member of the Order of the British Empire for his role in building up the hedge funds and their infrastructure during the 1990s.

Two Americans on the board of the CIMA, further indicate the nasty character of that institution.

* Warren Coats, who served for 26 years with the International Monetary Fund, was called in by the United States to be an advisor to Iraq and Afghanistan on "rebuilding money and banking systems"—which has resulted in disaster.

* Richard Rahn, a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, the oligarchy's coordinating center for deregulation and elimination of the nation-state, is also the head of the Center for Economic Growth. This Center is an offshoot of the rightist FreedomWorks Foundation, run by C. Boyden Gray, heir of the Reynolds Tobacco fortune; and by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex). Rahn's buddy and intelligence operative Gray helped arrange the European Union Savings Directive, which permitted the Cayman Islands government to exempt the hedge funds there from reporting to European countries their "cross-border income."

In addition to the Caymans, the offshore British Virgin Islands has over 2,000 hedge funds registered, and Bermuda has over 500. (Note that the total number of hedge funds officially registered in British outposts, combined, exceeds the world total, in this unregulated sector.)

The Real Enemy

With the power accumulated from these unregulated offshore British outposts led by the Cayman Islands, the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy has assembled an incredible strike force, above and against the interest of nation-states.

* Hedge funds are the dominant force in the Japanese yen and to an extent, the Swiss franc carry-trade. The carry-trade has provided an enormous source of liquidity for some of the most risky derivatives and leveraged financial games in the world. The unwinding of this trade, represented by the 3.6% appreciation of the yen from Feb. 26 to March 2, by itself can bring down the world financial system.

* According to reports, during 2005, the hedge funds were responsible for up to 50% of the transactions on the London and New York stock exchanges.

* Senators Carl Levin and Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)—chairman and ranking member of the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee—have shown that the hedge funds are a center for circulating hundreds of billions of dollars in hot-money flows and tax shelters. They document a case of the brothers Sam and Charles Wyly of Texas, who used two Cayman Island hedge funds to store and shelter $300 million from taxes in the United States.

* The hedge funds are among the biggest speculators in some of the most precarious derivatives instruments, like credit derivatives, and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which are adding instability to the shaking world financial system.

* The hedge funds are leading a frenzied wave of mergers and acquisitions, which reached nearly $4 trillion last year, and they are buying up and stripping down companies from auto parts producer Delphi and Texas power utility TXU, to Office Equities Properties, to hundreds of thousands of apartments in Berlin and Dresden, Germany. This has led to hundreds of thousands of workers being laid off.

They are assisted by their Wall Street allies. Taken altogether, the hedge funds, with money borrowed from the world's biggest commercial and investment banks, have pushed the world's derivatives bubble well past $600 trillion in nominal value, and put the world on the path of the biggest financial disintegration in modern history.

At the same time, in this Anglo-Dutch mix are the big banks, like the British Crown's Dope, Inc. bank, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Europe's biggest; and the Dutch ABN-Amro, which owns the old-line British Empire investment bank Barings. With this integrated force, using the Cayman Islands as a basing operation, the Anglo-Dutch Liberals have leverage over the world financial system.

The hedge funds' wild forays cannot be controlled by neat resolutions on open reporting. The hedge-fund issue involves the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, which believes it is in an end-game war, and will do anything to preserve its power. This is the level of the fight by any force serious about tackling the hedge-fund question.

EIR's "Glossary of the Global Financial Casino," published May 27, 2005, defines a hedge fund as "a form of mutual fund used by wealthy individuals and institutions to engage in aggressive speculative activities prohibited to ordinary mutual funds. Hedge funds are restricted by law to no more than 100 investors per fund, and these investors are presumed to be sufficiently knowledgeable to understand the risks. Most hedge funds have extremely high minimum investment amounts ranging from $250,000 to well over $1 million.

[moeen yaseen]

THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM IS BURNING AT BOTH ENDS

Paul Gallagher
EIR

Only two weeks after the Bank of Japan triggered an unwinding of the yen carry trade with its Feb. 21 interest rate increase, one of the largest U.S. mortgage lending companies, Century Financial, declared itself effectively bankrupt and at the mercy of its bank lenders for more credit—credit those same banks cannot afford to give. And three of those lenders—Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and Goldman Sachs—by March 3, were being rated by their own securities traders virtually as issuers of junk paper.

During the second half of February and first week of March, the shrinking yen (and Swiss franc) carry trades, and the imploding markets for U.S. mortgage-backed securities, became the hammer and anvil of a disintegrating international financial system which has been blown up by larger and larger debt bubbles ever since the October 1987 stock crash. The biggest of all those bubbles by far—U.S. real estate mortgage values as of the end of 2006, half the assets of the U.S. banking system—is now going down.

"The amount of indebtedness outstanding is greater than could ever be repaid, so the system is hopelessly bankrupt," said leading economist Lyndon LaRouche at the opening of his March 7 webcast from Washington, D.C. Leading nations now must agree to replace that bankrupt system with the "New Bretton Woods" monetary reform LaRouche proposes, and issue new productive credits to replace the masses of collapsing debt—before a complete collapse of the dollar and monetary chaos make that impossible.

London has played a key role in triggering the carry trade reversal, and potential dollar collapse, in a possible repeat of Harold Wilson's British government's role in using a 1966-67 pound sterling crisis to destroy FDR's post-war Bretton Woods system. In the five days preceding the Bank of Japan move, Bank of England governors Mervyn King and David Blanchflower both made public statements that the British pound was overvalued and should fall—and it has fallen most rapidly against the yen. In the huge growth of central banks' currency reserves since 2001, the British pound has benefitted most from outflows from the Japanese yen; and London is in a position to play the game of reversing that flow—and sinking the dollar with it—to gain political control over a global financial crash.

'The Great Unwind Has Started'

To give an idea of what LaRouche is pointing to: Estimates of household debt in the OECD countries are at roughly 90% of total GDP, compared to just 29% in 1990; estimates of corporate debt in those nations at the end of 2006 were at approximately 80% of GDP—compared to 55% in 1995—because of the global "leveraged takeover boom" which reached nearly $4 trillion in takeovers during 2006. The 80%-of-GDP level was 20% above that of 1988, at the collapse of the 1980s takeover boom and the 1987 stock crash.

Since 1995, the yen carry trade—borrowing money in Japanese yen at virtual-zero interest, and investing it in high-interest speculations of all kinds, all over the world—has been the largest single driver of these debt bubbles. Various economists familiar with the yen carry trade, in discussions with EIR since Feb. 21, have estimated its annual pumping rate at anywhere between $300 billion and $1 trillion. Since Feb. 21, despite universal claims at that time in the financial media that Japan's interest-rate hike would "have no impact on the carry trade," it has begun to unwind with a force felt worldwide (see "Japan Interest-Rate Hike Could Collapse the System," EIR, March 2, 2007).

Now, as one economist in Asia wrote March 2, "The huge outflow of yen will come to a halt," and the dollar is likely to go down to 100-105 yen within a short time.

Perhaps the biggest receptacle of this debt speculation, the U.S. mortgage-based securities market, has been struck hard—and it was already disintegrating before the Bank of Japan move and the rise of the yen. As an official of Dresdner Kleinwort bank, which warned clients a month earlier that an explosion could be about to hit the hedge funds from this direction, said on March 2, "We believe 'the great unwind' has now started." As several economists have noted, the uncertainty about how fast this debt will collapse, is caused only by the terra incognita nature of the mortgage securities market, the roughly $30 trillion credit derivatives partly based on it, and the hedge funds which buy, sell, and bet on these debt securities and derivative contracts. These debt markets are opaque: No government, regulator, or market participant knows how concentrated this debt paper is, or who holds it.

On March 2, it became clear that California-based New Century Financial Corp, the second-largest lender of subprime mortgages and one of the biggest mortgage firms overall, was poised to go under, with $40-70 billion in subprime mortgages alone. Its stock had fallen by 93%, and its filing that day said that a failure to obtain waivers from lenders or find new funding sources could cause "substantial doubt" over its ability to remain in business. Since November 2006, some 25 mortgage lenders have failed, but this is by far the biggest. On March 5, Bloomberg reported, "The fate of New Century Financial Corp. may rest with securities firms including Morgan Stanley and UBS that once staked the U.S. mortgage company to more than $17 billion and bought its loans by the thousands." But that same day, traders at Morgan, Merrill, and Goldman were rating their own banks' mortgage securities and credit derivatives at five or six levels below the banks' "official" credit ratings—almost as junk paper.

At the same time, the Crown's Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. (HSBC) confirmed March 5, that it took a $10.6 billion impairment charge, that is, loss, on its bad mortgage loans for 2006.

In fact, the whole subprime mortgage-backed securities market was turning illiquid, freezing up, with interest rates quoted at a radioactive 15% above U.S. Treasury bond rates. The issuance of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS) against subprime mortgages, plunged nearly 60% from January to February. In March, even Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the biggest bank purchasers of these mortgages were becoming unable to re-issue them as securities—which made the Federal Reserve's panic issuance of new, restrictive guidelines for them on March 5, appear ludicrous.

By March 7, the contagion of rapidly rising "risk premiums" on debt based on subprime mortgages, had already begun spreading into other debt markets: securities and derivatives based on "mid-prime" mortgages, on European corporate bonds, and then on U.S. commercial mortages.

This contagion is the "disintegration" of the financial system LaRouche speaks of, as increasing categories of unpayable debt can't be rolled over into new debt securities—and it is not stoppable except by a thoroughgoing bankruptcy reorganization, carried out by leading governments.

This meltdown is blasting hard at the real U.S. economy lying underneath. On March 8, Moodys.com estimated, for example, that the housing market, which has been laying off U.S. workers at 25,000-plus/month, is going to escalate its job losses to 75,000/month in the second and third quarters of 2007. Moodys' economist Mark Zandi forecast that "Most lenders ... are not going to fool around; they're going to put the foreclosed properties up for sale fast, at a discount, to move the properties." This will rapidly depress prices and sales. which are already falling. The auto industry is already shrinking at a 10,000 jobs/month pace, and other manufacturing industry is losing 15,000 jobs monthly.

Hedge Funds' Losses

As the opaque, $30 trillion credit derivatives market shakes, the hedge funds and banks that dominate this market are getting hit with widespread losses, by all reports. Trading volume on credit default swaps indexes in European markets was estimated at "three times the average weekly volume," by Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Kleinwort. Volumes on U.S. collateralized debt obligation (CDO) markets were thought to be even larger. "Both [Wall] Street and clients have been caught long.... Some peoples' year was wiped out on Tuesday [Feb. 27]," reported Martin Schüler of Dresdner.

Reports filed on March 6 by three big Europe-based hedge funds (all in the range of $3-8 billion in capital under management) gave a window into the big hedge funds' losses in February and early March, as the carry trades started unwinding and "financial disintegration" accelerated. Man Group's AHL Diversified Futures Ltd. fund dropped 8.2% in first week of March, and has lost 7.2% for the year to date; Winton Capital's Futures Fund lost 5.9% in February, and Transtrend's Enhanced Risk fund fell 4.1% in February, and has lost 5.7% for the year to date.

At the point the Bank of Japan raised rates on Feb. 21, the yen carry trade—or, the "yen short position" in currency markets—was at 97% of its highest volume in history. Last time the yen carry trade reached record levels and then was punctured and quickly "unwound," was in 1998, with the Russian GKO bond default and subsequent meltdown of the large LTCM hedge fund, later admitted by both International Monetary Fund and Federal Reserve officials to have nearly collapsed the international financial system. In that 1998 "unwinding," through early 1999, the dollar fell by more than 20%. Lyndon LaRouche has warned repeatedly that London, and some stupid U.S. economic interests—are threatening to trigger a further 20% dollar plunge, and international monetary and financial chaos.

[moeen yaseen]

OPEN LETTER TO THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT

Hany Al-Bayaty
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=200703 18&articleId=5103

The national popular resistance in Iraq, in defending the whole of humanity against a culture of force, deserves our recognition and support, writes Hana Abdul Ilah Al-Bayaty

The illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq is not only the biggest crime of recent history, it is the original sin of the 21st century, a depravity. In its war on Iraq, the United States has sought to destroy Iraq as both a state and a nation. It decimated an entire class — the progressive middle class of Iraq that had proven its capacity to manage Iraqi resources independently and to the benefit of all; it killed nearly a million while sending millions more into exile; it orchestrated death squads and looting and invented new horrors in torture and rape; in the name of bringing democracy, it brought material destruction on a mass scale to a people, aiming also to erase their identity, memory, culture, social fabric, institutions and forms of administration, commerce, and everyday life; it even attacked Iraq’s unborn generations with the 4.7 billion-year death of depleted uranium. It has engaged in civilisational genocide as well as its own moral suicide. Force, however, does not dictate right. The brutality of power and imperialism has been definitively exposed while the project for a new American century has utterly failed. The consequences for American and international history are conclusive. The world order that formed around erstwhile US liberal values has evaporated.

The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is a military, economic, political, moral and cultural disaster for Americans and the world. US military failure has been demonstrated by the inability of the best funded and most sophisticated armed force in the world to defeat the resistance of a small country and its poor people tired of 13 years of sanctions, exposing war as useless. While the Americans may attempt to secure their presence in Iraq, they cannot destroy the belief of Iraqis that they have the right to live as any other people in the world, free and independent and sovereign in their land and over their resources. Occupying Iraq is an economic disaster because the costs of the war for the United States have increased beyond any economic gain it could have from controlling Iraqi oil. Politically, the occupation is a disaster for the United States because no one in the world can argue that it is playing a progressive role. The occupation is also a moral and cultural disaster for the US. Following the enormous human suffering of World War II, the world — Americans included — established international law and human rights law that set the standard for civilised societies. US neoconservatives and imperialists are trying to destroy this civilisation, refusing to be subject to international law and replacing it with the law of the jungle. How can the world — Americans included — be identified with such a savage enterprise as the war on and occupation of Iraq?

Arabs are not strangers to neo-imperial attempts to prevent their development. They recall the systematic demonisation of their popular movements: the attempted toppling of the democratically elected Syrian government in 1956 for being “communist”, the characterisation of Nasser as a “fascist” when he nationalised the Suez Canal, the criminalisation of the Iraqi Baath Party, referred to as “Nazis”, when it refused to surrender control over Iraq’s resources. Even the Palestinian and Lebanese people who heroically struggle against occupation are considered “terrorists”. We know well what are colonial policies in general and in this region in particular. The US always pretends to defend the rights of a minority — whether its demands are justified or not — in order to control the majority. In Iraq, since 1991, the US appealed to Kurds and Shias to rebel, trying to insinuate that those who govern them are Sunnis. Anyone with intellectual honesty knows that the Baath Party was neither sectarian in its thinking nor in its membership.

US-Israeli plans, based on creating divisions among Arabs in one country, or between countries, have failed. In Iraq, the policy of charming some groups of the Iraqi Resistance or their supporters in order to divide them and isolate the resistance has failed completely. Despite repeated declarations made by war criminal Jalal Talabani, resistance groups are united in their position. Second, the policy of dividing Iraqi movements into Shia, Sunni and Kurd, is disintegrating: large movements of opinion insist on the unity of Iraq and the common interest of its people. Ever more groups in the south enter the struggle against the occupation and its local puppet government. The unity of Turkomen, Assyrians and Arabs on the fate of Kirkuk is an example of underlying unity, as is the deepening of tribal solidarity, spreading demands for a large political national front, demonstrations in the north, and ever unifying positions concerning the future of Iraq’s oil wealth.

Iraq has been a socio-economic and geopolitical entity for more than 4000 years, it cannot be divided. It is the cradle of several civilisations. When united this entity has proven able to enhance human civilisation and be an engine for progress. Where the Sumerians invented writing, the Babylonians invented law, followed by the Abbasid who introduced the idea of a state of all its citizens and of social solidarity in society, opening the path for the unifying Arab-Muslim civilisation that survives proudly to this day. The Iraqi people are the expression of this heritage, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Never in history could two states cohabitate the area that is now Iraq. It has always been in the interest of the peoples who settled in the Iraq basin to organise together a common geopolitical future. There have been many unsuccessful imperial attempts to divide this natural entity. No form of aggression, regardless of how criminal or vengeful, can destroy the Arab-Muslim identity of Iraq or Iraq’s geopolitical unity. In its attempts to destroy this civilisation and reality, the US administration has thrown the entire idea of the so-called West into disarray. Definitively exposed are all the racist and condescending attitudes that had remained latent or covert. The “West” — and the United States in particular — stands naked as a culture of force. The moral accounting, which will develop inexorably, will change world history. It is the resistance of the Iraqi people that demands it.

Attempts to choke Arab development cannot but fail. The three main socio-economic and political currents developed by Arab societies — nationalists, Islamists and leftists — are intrinsically anti-imperialist and therefore opposed to US-Israeli regional designs. For nationalists, retaining control of national resources to serve the general interest is sacrosanct. For leftists, opposing the international chains of imperialism and globalisation is a baseline. For Islamists, resistance to foreign occupation, as written in the Quran, is a duty. Their interest lies currently in achieving unity in struggle. They are united by their Arabo-Muslim identity. They share common principles and values as follows: natural resources, material heritage, and the riches of culture and civilisation are the property of the totality of the people; the totality of citizens constitutes the people; the people are the sole source of sovereignty and of constitutional, political and judicial legitimacy; government is responsible for and accountable to all citizens; solidarity between citizens — between generations, the able and ill, the elderly and young, the orphan and every human being who finds himself in a state of weakness — should form the basis of any government’s social policy. The general interest is the justification and basis for the operation of the state, with every citizen, free of all forms of discrimination, sharing in the fruits of national wealth and social development.

The United States established a collision course confrontation with Iraqi society when it liquidated the Iraqi state, destroying its accomplishments and erasing its memory. It was oblivious to the simple truth that society is not a political movement or head of state that can be conquered, apprehended, bribed or killed; rather, it is all the living people in a given country. Like other live societies, Iraqi society possesses huge capabilities — a sophisticated legacy based on ancient civilisations and an experienced patriotic movement. Occupation forces faced from the first day a resolute resistance, culminating in an uprising by all Iraqi movements and organisations, including those defending women or unemployed youth, human rights organisations, trade unions, professional syndicates, agencies defending Iraq’s environment and the rights of prisoners, and all other cultural and political organisations, side-by-side with provincial and tribal communities and peaceful and armed resistance groups. A national popular movement, opposed to occupation and sectarianism, developed taking various forms, from civil to armed resistance.

In struggling against military-imperial powers, Iraqis fight in defence of values around which a majority in the world gathers in consensus. In contrast, the sheer level of force to which Iraqis have been subjected by imperial powers — from systematic murder and rape, the desecration of religious and cultural sites and the destruction of Iraq’s historic heritage, the poisoning of Iraq’s landscape and rivers by radioactive weapons that will mark the lives of its future generations for hundreds if not thousands of years, the terrorising of a whole national population and its attempted division along lines leading to all out civil war, the plunder of its resources — prove the decadence and utter immorality of the neoliberal/neoconservative agenda. The struggle of Iraq is a struggle for civilisation, for culture, for justice, and for not reducing human life to mere production and consumption or the conquest of others. Indeed, the present uprising of Iraqis is not only a part of the wider struggle against savage globalisation and “free” capital, it is its forefront battle. It is because the Iraqis refuse to surrender their sovereignty to multinational corporations that Iraq is being destroyed so viciously.

While the occupation is a disaster for the United States, for Iraqi society it is a catastrophe. With the aid of its allies, the US has destroyed all that Iraqis built in modern times. It should come as no surprise that Iraqis will continue struggling against the occupation in order to restore their society. The large educated and marginalised middle class, along with the impoverished working class and unemployed youth deprived of state subsidies, have no interest in collaborating with the US policy of creating a class of blood-soaked feudal warlords. Resistance is the only path for Iraqis to true liberty, democracy, peace, dignity and achieving their interests, both as individuals and as a people. The US administration has succeeded in nothing but destruction, bloodshed and lies. The Iraqi Resistance is by definition democratic as it is the spontaneous expression of a people who took its destiny into its hands, and is by definition progressive as it defends the interests of the people.

While Western societies pose as being democratic, street action and popular consensus over the past four years has proven that Western structures of political governance are impervious to popular will. Despite its failure to solidify our trust in our ability to change history, the anti-war and anti-globalisation movement, in its various forms of expression, proves that the people understand the current divorce between their aspirations and the individuals, parties and institutions that are supposed to represent and defend them and their interests. New ways of civil struggle must be found, and urgently. While its failure is comprehensive, this US administration shows no sign of changing course. Iraq and the world cannot wait until November 2008, by which time this US administration and its local collaborators could have killed another one million Iraqis on top of the one million killed since 2003. Rigorous action is needed, including the impeachment and prosecution of responsible state leaders and officials for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of genocide.

We should support the call of Tun Dr Mahatir Mohammed to criminalise war as a means of resolving disputes among nations. We should support this call not only because war is a crime, but also because war again has been proven useless. Iraq cannot be broken and cannot be subjugated. The defeat of the United States and the occupation should be a lesson; that never again a military force tries to subjugate the people of another country. The US did not and cannot achieve its goals, even if it exterminates whole sections of Iraqi society. To succeed in stopping this insanity, the anti-war movement must revise all its terminology and refuse the terms dictated by the occupation. We must condemn the ignorance that accepts the dehumanising of the other. We must refuse the word “insurgency” and substitute it for what exists in reality: legitimate and legal resistance against vicious foreign occupation. Occupation is a de facto condition, not a de jure determination. With around 200,000 foreign forces on Iraqi soil, Iraq cannot be but described as an occupied country. Detainees in Iraq should thus be considered prisoners of war, with all the protected rights the Third Geneva Convention assures them.

We ought all to be humbled by the loses this people has been prepared to endure for our sake and demand the complete, unconditional and immediate withdrawal of occupation forces from Iraqi soil, along with the cancellation of any law, treaty, agreement or contract passed under occupation and the fair payment of reparations and compensations for the tragic human and material loses the Iraqis have suffered in defence of civilisation. We must refuse in total the culture of the military-imperial state if we are to contribute to the wave of resistance rising worldwide in defence of civilisation, justice, independence and coexistence. We must retrieve recognition from any entity imposed by the United States and that claims to represent the people of Iraq. Long live the Iraqi people and its sole representative, the Iraqi Resistance.

The writer is a member of the Executive Committee of The Brussells Tribunal and a frequent contributor to Global Research.

[moeen yaseen]

HTB LAUNCHES IRAQ REPORT EXPOSING MYTHS OF OCCUPATION & CHARTING NEW WAY FORWARD FOR THE MIDDLE EAST

http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/press-centre/press-release/htb-launches-ir aq-report-exposing-myths-of-occupation--charting-new-way-forward-for-t he-middle-east.html


London, UK, March 19 2007 - On the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the global Islamic political party, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, has launched a report entitled "Iraq: A New Way Forward" that charts a new way forward for the Middle East and wider Islamic world. The report is being widely circulated amongst thinkers, academics, journalists, columnists, politicians and think tanks.

The report comprehensively refutes the false justifications for the continued foreign intervention in Iraq - including the need for foreign forces to referee Iraq's sectarian conflict, the idea that more chaos would arise if troops left and the notion that Western governments have the moral authority for nation building. The report also argues that "any discussion of withdrawal from only Iraq will not serve to end the legacy of Western colonialism in the Middle East" because "for the long term stability of the region it is essential that foreign troops withdraw from the entire region, for their meddling has led to almost a century of tyrannical rule, brutal occupation and instability."


The report advocates the withdrawal of all foreign military personnel in Iraq and the wider region, an end to the West's support of dictatorial leaders in the region, allowing the Muslim world to decide its own political destiny without interference, freeing the region's vast energy reserves from the control of monarchies and multinationals, recognition of the illegality of the occupation of Palestine and an end to double standards over nuclear power in the region.


Speaking ahead of the report's launch, Dr Imran Waheed, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, said, "We believe the steps outlined in this report are a viable blueprint for breaking the deadlock and bringing new hope to the region and stability and security to the rest of the world. What is abundantly clear in the Middle East is that "staying the course" or trying again what has failed in the past, is not an acceptable strategy. Redeploying American forces from Iraq to Kuwait or the wider region for instance would be merely a cosmetic move. Unless the scourge of foreign occupation ends the region will continue to remain in the dysfunctional state it currently is. Once foreign occupation is ended, the region can then independently tackle the innumerable other challenges it faces head on."

"In the light of this report, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain and the Muslims of Britain call for the return of the Islamic Caliphate which will end the cycle of foreign occupation, dictatorship and war which has ravaged a region that previously prospered for over a thousand years under the stability of Islamic governance."



NOTES TO EDITORS:

(1) Download Iraq: A New Way Forward

(2) Prominent members of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain will be in Parliament Square on Wednesday 21st March between 11 am and 3 pm to discuss the report with politicians, journalists and academics.

(3) Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain will present the report and outline the way forward for Iraq at a public seminar on Friday March 30th 2007 at 7 pm. The venue will be Friends Meeting House, Euston Road, London WC1.

[moeen yaseen]

PLAYING MONOPOLY WITH IRAQI MONEY


Loretta Napoleoni and Georgia Straight
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAP200 70318&articleId=5108

The biggest transfer of cash in history took place from May 2003 to June 2004 when the U.S. Federal Reserve of New York shipped $12 billion in bills of various denominations to war-torn Iraq. Over the course of one year, a fleet of C-130s carried, from New York to Baghdad, 484 pallets weighing a total of 363 tonnes and holding 281 million banknotes. This is not an advertisement for a new board game but the summary of a memorandum prepared for a meeting of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, which is examining the "reconstruction" of Iraq under Paul Bremer.

No proper record of the funds, which were distributed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, is available. They seem to have been disbursed like Monopoly money. Contractors were paid in cash from the back of pickup trucks; thousands of "ghost employees", people enlisted in ministerial jobs that did not exist, were paid salaries with bundles of currency; one million dollars was stolen from the CPA vault and nobody seemed to be bothered; $500 million was disbursed under the heading "TBD", which stands for "to be determined". An obscure consulting firm from San Diego was in charge of certifying the distribution of the money, yet it never conducted any review of internal controls, as was contractually required.

Bremer's financial adviser, retired admiral David Oliver, seems surprised by the House committee's concern, as if the billions that have vanished were really play money. When challenged by a BBC journalist about the consequences of the disappearance without trace of billions of dollars, he pointed out that it was irrelevant where the money had gone because it was Iraqi funds, not U.S. taxpayers' money. The $12 billion came from Iraqi assets seized after the first Gulf War, from the sale of Iraqi oil, and from surplus payments from the UN oil-for-food program. The $12 billion is not included in the $400 billion spent by the U.S. in Iraq since March 2003.

The procedure for unfreezing "political" money is generally very long and requires the fulfillment of several legal requirements. After a legal battle of more than a decade, waged by a group of Cuban exiles, then-president Bill Clinton finally released some of the Cuban funds frozen during Fidel Castro's 1950s revolution. Still locked in the vaults of the Federal Reserve is Iranian money seized after the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini ousted Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979, some of Gen. Manuel Noriega's dirty money, and even some assets belonging to the recently deceased Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.

Iraqi funds were miraculously freed in less than two months. The procedure was quick and involved the approval of the United Nations, which, technically, was responsible for the oil-for-food surpluses. Those monies could have been used to bring back water and electricity to millions of Iraqis; if equitably distributed, they would have made each Iraqi man, woman, and child $15,000 richer. Instead, they were wasted by incompetent officers appointed by even more incompetent politicians.

It is surreal to think that the U.S. government rushed to fly hundreds of tonnes of cash to a country where its army could not stop people looting arsenals, banks, museums, and hospitals, to a country not yet pacified. As Waxman put it: "Who in their right mind would send 363 tonnes of cash into a war zone?"

War is not a board game; it is deadly serious business. Even more surreal is the fact that no plan existed for what to do with so much money.

Bremer claims that the CPA urgently needed the cash because the banking system had disappeared and Iraq was a cash economy. Yet his administration was not equipped to operate in a cash economy, proven by the way it wasted those billions. War zones are always cash economies. Did Bremer really think that after President George W. Bush's famous "mission accomplished"

declaration, ATM machines in Baghdad would miraculously start working again?

Those monies were also needed to inject U.S. dollars into a country where the local currency, the Iraqi dinar, was about to collapse. This is the other explanation Bremer put forward. Most currencies collapse after major conflicts. In the aftermath of the Second World War, devaluation spread like a virus among European currencies and new money had to be introduced by the central banks.

Injecting cash for the sake of injecting cash does more harm than devaluation; it can be extremely dangerous because war economies are run by militias, criminal gangs, black marketeers, and profiteers. Cash flows naturally toward these people.

Oliver, the man who was supposed to advise Bremer on these issues, is as unmoved as his ex-boss by the thought that the money they so irresponsibly distributed may have funded ethnic militias, criminal gangs, and insurgent groups in addition to "contractors" engaged in the reconstruction. Their lack of concern springs from the belief that they are not responsible for such failure because they are American and the money was Iraqi—they feel accountable to the U.S. taxpayer, not to the Iraqi people. The fact that some of those funds may have funded ambushes in which U.S. soldiers could have been killed does not cross their minds. War is a highly deceptive game.

Though the money was Iraqi, there is evidence that the CPA was eager to spend all of it before the interim Iraqi government was appointed. The House committee minutes report that one officer was handed $6.75 million in cash and told to spend it in the week before the interim government took control of the Development Fund for Iraq, where the money should have been held.

The motives behind such behaviour are clear. The primary objective was not to kick-start the reconstruction of Iraq. If it had been, the U.S. would have appointed competent people to run the CPA and the $12 billion would have gone to fund a sort of Marshall Plan, in which each penny would have been accounted for.

The objective was really another one: to establish an American bastion in the heart of the Middle East. Having incompetent U.S. officials distribute Iraqi money as if it were "funny money" instead of turning it over to the Iraqi interim government was part of this plan. Clearly, the Bush administration has never played Monopoly, or it would know the game's cardinal rules: never waste money and always invest wisely.

[moeen yaseen]

NO GOOD CHOICES IN THE HALLS OF POWER: DEMOCRATS VOTE $100 BILLION TO CONTINUE THE WAR

Larry Everest
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EVE2007032 8&articleId=5219

On Friday, March 23, the Democrats in the House of Representatives pushed through the “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and Iraq Accountability Act” by a vote of 218-212. The bill gives the Bush administration some $100 billion to continue the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, while calling for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by September 1, 2008.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi hailed this as a vote “to bring an end to the war in Iraq.” But it is no such thing. This bill (and a similar Democratic Party bill under consideration in the Senate) is not a step towards ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq or the larger “war on terror” it is part of. This bill doesn't represent a condemnation of—or accountability for—the U.S.’s unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. Rather the bill’s stated goal is to “help fight the war on terror.” And the bill certainly doesn’t call for U.S. forces to leave the Middle East/Central Asian region.

Instead of ending the war, this bill is an effort to pressure the Bush regime to adjust its strategy in Iraq and the region to better preserve U.S. imperialist hegemony and stamp out anti-U.S. resistance, Islamic fundamentalism in particular. It’s also designed to rein in and paralyze the millions who are increasingly angry and disillusioned with the war and the Bush regime, and channel these feelings into support for a different (Democratic Party) strategy and tactics in waging that war. So while talking of ending the war , the Democrats offer a plan to continue the war in Iraq, expand the war in Afghanistan, and give Bush a green light to attack Iran!

Retooling U.S. Strategy—Not Ending the War

The Democrats’ bill reflects the deep concern of many ruling class strategists that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and the Bush strategy must be changed to head off even greater disasters for the empire. The interests of the peoples of the Middle East don’t enter into their cold-blooded, imperial calculations. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor under Jimmy Carter who has been advising the Democrats, testified before the Senate earlier this year:

“If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large…[plunging] a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”

So the Democrats (following in the vein of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group—see "The Baker Report on Iraq: Desperate Straits, Deep Divisions, Dwindling Options" in Revolution #73) are proposing a number of measures to try to stabilize the situation in Iraq, limit further U.S. losses (including the enormous stresses on the U.S. military), and shore up U.S. efforts across the region—while refocusing the U.S.’s “war on terror.” (This war, as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate, is in essence a war for greater empire.) The measures proposed by the Democrats include:

Fully funding the war: Congress has the power to end the war by cutting off funding. Instead, the Democrats chose to give Bush $100 billion, enabling him to continue the war as he sees fit for the immediate future. This is more money than Bush originally asked for!
Enforcing “benchmarks”: These are the same benchmarks for the Iraqi government that Bush himself spelled out in his January 10 speech. The Democrats want to more aggressively impose them by threatening funding cutoffs and troops redeployments (from combat operations to training and/or out of the country). These benchmarks have nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people—just the opposite. They’re aimed at heading off a strategic defeat in the region by forcing the various factions in the Iraqi government to subordinate their agendas to the U.S.’s overall goal of creating a more stable regime capable of ending the anti-occupation insurgency and the ongoing civil war, holding Iraq together, and acting in concert with U.S. goals in the region. So the Bush-Democrat benchmarks include passing a bill that divides oil revenues among Iraq’s different national and religious groups, reining in sectarian militias, and taking frontline responsibility to fight anti-U.S. forces. The U.S.-backed oil bill also opens Iraq’s enormous oil reserves up to direct and open control by foreign capital for the first time in over 30 years, potentially giving global powers like the U.S. a stranglehold over this key Iraqi resource.
Agreeing with Bush and blaming Iraqis for their suffering: Many top Democrats spout the ugly chauvinist lies of the Bush regime, portraying the U.S. invasion as a noble effort to liberate Iraq, and claiming that the Iraqis have now screwed things up with a persistent civil war. “We have lost over 3,000 people. We have lost over 25,000 wounded. The Iraqis have had Saddam Hussein taken out. They have had two elections,” Tennessee Democrat John Tanner declared on the Lehrer Newshour (March 22). “They have had a government now for over a year. And we see no progress on them…it's time for them to step up.” But this turns reality upside down. It is the U.S.’s unprovoked war of aggression that has lead to the death of an estimated 650,000 Iraqis, the forced displacement of another 3.2 million (over one in ten Iraqis!), and widespread destruction. Tanner's lie also covers up the fact that the U.S. helped trigger and continues to fuel a civil war by empowering some reactionary forces, barring others and encouraging sectarian divisions.
“Redeployment”—not withdrawal: The Democrats are not demanding that U.S. forces immediately leave Iraq—the only just solution—or that they ever leave Iraq. Both Bush and the Democrats envision that thousands of U.S. troops will be in Iraq for years to come—just not on the frontlines of combat in the same way or in the same numbers. Nancy Pelosi’s website states: “Following redeployment, U.S. troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations, and training of Iraqi Security Forces.” These open-ended commitments, and the Democrats’ refusal to renounce permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, mean that thousands of American troops could be stationed in Iraq for decades to come.
Escalating in Afghanistan: Many of the “redeployed” troops could well be used in other countries in the region. According to Pelosi, “The bill significantly increases funding to defeat al Qaeda and terrorists in Afghanistan.” She also called it an effort to concentrate on Afghanistan “where the war on terrorism is.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the House bill “maximizes our chances for success in Iraq and redeploys our troops so we can more effectively wage the war on terror.” Afghanistan is not a “good war,” with Iraq a “diversion” from the “real war on terror,” as the Democrats often argue. Both are parts of the Bush regime’s war for greater empire, and the strikingly similar outcomes in both countries—the deepening suffering and anger of the people, the empowering of brutal reactionaries, the strengthening of oppressive, feudal relations—illustrate this reality.
Preserving the U.S. imperialist military: Another goal of the redeployment is preserving and rebuilding the U.S. military—the U.S.’s main weapon for enforcing its global hegemony. “The war in Iraq has produced a national security crisis,” Pelosi warned, “with military readiness at its lowest level since the Vietnam War.” In supporting the House bill, Brzezinski stated, “The United States cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. A means must be devised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq and reduce our troop levels, so that we can begin to rebuild our military and reclaim our position of leadership in the world.”
Giving Bush a green light to attack Iran: The Democrats removed a stipulation that Bush had to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran. With the U.S. openly threatening Iran and with war preparations at an advanced stage, and given the Bush regime’s track record of launching pre-emptive wars based on lies—this amounts to giving Bush a bright green light to attack Iran.
Pressuring Bush, without unraveling the war: The Democrats are trying to walk the fine line of pressuring Bush while continuing to give him freedom to wage the war as “commander-in-chief,” and not provoking a political crisis which could also contribute to a U.S. defeat. That’s why the Democrats have continued funding the war and why there are no means in their bill for enforcing their demands. In terms of the benchmarks, all Bush has to do is periodically “certify” in public that the Iraqi government is meeting them. And California Democrat Lynn Woolsey said on Democracy Now! (March 22), “There are virtually no enforcement measures in this legislation that will make the President do anything that we’re telling him to do… when we get to the end of August 2008 and the war is still going on, we’re going to say to the President, ‘Alright, now you have to bring them home.’ The only way we can force him to do that in this bill is to sue him.” (Of course, whether a political crisis will be averted is another matter. Bush has threatened to veto the Democrats' legislation and is demanding a bill with no stipulations—or “strings”—at all. Overall the possibility for geopolitical disaster in Iraq—or as a result of war with Iran—has made tensions within the ruling establishment very, very sharp.)
All these steps flow from the Democrat Party’s agreement with the Bush regime’s basic goal of maintaining and strengthening U.S. imperialist global dominance—even as they have deep disagreements over how to realize it. An insightful column in the Washington Post noted the striking similarity between the strategic visions of Democratic “neo-liberals” and Republican “neocons”:

“[T]he fact is that prevailing Democratic doctrine is not that different from the Bush-Cheney doctrine. Many Democrats, including senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, embraced the idea of muscular foreign policy based on American global supremacy and the presumed right to intervene to promote democracy or to defend key U.S. interests long before 9/11, and they have not changed course since. Even those who have shifted against the war have avoided doctrinal questions....without a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine, with its confidence in America's military preeminence and the global appeal of ‘free market democracy,’ the Democrats' midterm victory may not be repeated in November 2008. Or, if the Democrats do win in 2008, they could remain staked to a vision of a Pax Americana strikingly reminiscent of Bush's.” ("It's Uphill for the Democrats," Tony Smith, Washington Post, March 11, 2007)

What is Needed to End the War

In November, millions voted for the Democrats to protest Bush and the war, and in hopes they would end it. Today, many—including people who worked energetically to elect Democrats and who’ve been lobbying them to cut off war funding—feel bitter, betrayed, and outraged.

They should be outraged.

The lesson is not that the Democrats “sold out” or are “spineless.” The lesson is that the Democrats are a ruling class party (and this is deeply institutionalized, regardless of the desires or intentions of its supporters or even some elected Democrats), acting to advance the interests of a capitalist-imperialist system they’re part of and represent. These interests are directly antagonistic to the interests and sentiments of billions of people globally and the vast majority in the U.S.

The content of the “Iraq Accountability Act” and the way it was pushed through (including by threatening and strong-arming Democrats who said they wanted to vote against war funding and refusing to allow a vote on an amendment to only fund a withdrawal of U.S. forces) show this. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans make decisions on the basis of elections or public opinion. They make decisions based on the needs and interests of the imperialist system.

How can anything good for the people possibly come from decisions based not on ending an unjust war, but “winning” it? Not on ending a neo-colonial occupation, but stabilizing and continuing it? Not on supporting real liberation and self-determination, but on controlling countries and resources half way around the globe, and ensuring that the corporate-financial rulers of a country with some three percent of the world’s population can dominate and determine the destinies of the other 97%?

For a deep analysis of the U.S. political structure, the struggle between different factions at the top of this pyramid, and their relationship to the people, readers should dig into Bob Avakian’s "The Pyramid of Power and the Struggle to Turn This Whole Thing Upside Down" (Revolutionary Worker #1237, April 25, 2004)

And the problem isn’t only that the Democrats are betraying people's hopes. They’re also actively and aggressively trying to channel and confine people's hopes into pro-war, pro-imperialist politics. These are the only choices offered (in elections generally, especially important ones), and the only choices deemed “realistic” by the powers-that-be. Take a “poll” conducted by Moveon.org, an activist group closely tied to the Democratic Party, right before the war funding vote. Moveon gave its members the “choice” of voting for Pelosi’s bill—or not. Voting to end funding for the war wasn’t a choice, even though the head of Moveon admitted its membership would have supported it (See "Moveon moves in with Pelosi").

This is one way millions of anti-war people end up voting for one pro-war candidate vs another. And this is already being “programmed” into the 2008 elections—and into the minds of anyone who remains confined by these choices. This will happen unless and until the entire political calculus is upended by massive upheaval from below.

But such an outpouring cannot and will not happen as long as millions are putting their hopes in the Democrats—either passively by waiting for 2008, or even actively, by focusing their energy, efforts, hopes, and yes money into pressuring the Democrats to “do the right thing” instead of putting them where they can really count for something: into mobilizing the one force that can stop the war and drive out the Bush regime– the millions, from all walks of life, who oppose them. Inspiring and organizing these millions to take independent mass political action based on the just demands of ending the war and turning back all the outrages of the Bush regime from torture to spying to theocracy, is the only realistic option and the only way these crimes will be stopped. It will never happen by hoping the Democrats become something they’re not, and never have been.

[moeen yaseen]

CURRENT HISTORY AS TRAGEDY: RUSSIA AND IRAN ON STRATEGY

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
March 30, 2007
http://larouchepac.com/pages/writings_files/2007/0401_russia_iran.shtm l


Just as the stubborn incompetence shown by nearly all of the world's economists today, is a reflection of their reliance on Cartesian mechanical-statistical methods, instead of competent, Riemannian principles of dynamics: a similar problem often infects the foreign-policy and related strategic outlooks of most nations of the world, still today. The failure of some influential Iranian circles to understand the irritation shown by Russia's President Putin, is an example of that same, currently prevalent problem of reliance upon mechanistic thinking, rather than dynamic conceptions, in strategic matters. That represents the same type of error in method which is presently common to failed economic forecasting.


Observers have noted a certain strain in the relations between Russia and Iran, over the issue of Iran's rejection of Russia's flexible response to the current Anglo-American use of Iran's alleged nuclear-weapons-program provocations, as a pretext for escalating the already ongoing spread of generalized asymmetric and other warfare within the Southwest Asia theater.

There are two points which President Putin's Russia seems, clearly, to grasp, but which some influential circles within Iran, as also elsewhere, have, unfortunately, missed. Iran is not to be singled out on this problem of method; what passes for strategic thinking in most circles in western and central Europe, as in most relevant leading circles in the U.S.A., reflects the exact same error of method shown by some important circles in Iran.

To restate the point just made: The marginal error expressed, on this account, by the views of some Iranian factions, is part of a mosaic of what are, otherwise, similarly dangerous errors of assumption by representatives of many nations. This includes, most emphatically, the cases of some relatively simplistic parodies of so-called "strategic thinking" among relevant leading professional politician circles, such as within the U.S. Congress, and among the leading Presidential candidates, within the U.S.A. itself.

The first of the points to which I refer: is that a prudent commander must always understand who the real enemy is. The real enemy is often the clever one, the one often disguised as an ally.

So, Bismarck rightly fought a war of defense against the aggression of British puppet Napoleon III, but, rightly opposed, if unsuccessfully, the Prussian monarchy's foolish refusal to end the war at the point of Napoleon III's defeat. The Kaiser's error was in thus committing a fully enraged, future France to play the role of London's puppet in geopolitical warfare, World Wars I and II, against continental Eurasia.

So, Germany's foolish and duped Wilhelm II and the other nephew of Edward VII, Czar Nicholas II, allowed themselves to make war against each other, at the pleasure of a decadent Austro-Hungarian Kaiser, all this in service of London's intention to have Russia and Germany destroy one another, and themselves, in geopolitical World Wars I and II, organized from imperial London. To bring about the calamity called "World War I," the Kaiser himself cleared the way to war with Russia, through dumping the Chancellor Bismarck who was opposed to Germany's being trapped into supporting Habsburg follies in the Balkans.

The second of the two points, is that a prudent commander never permits his enemy to lure him, half-wittingly, into taking ground at a place and time which the adversary has shrewdly chosen for his relative advantage. For example: The only important, true enemy of Iran resides both in London, and, therefore, also, among the London-steered allies of former U.S. Vice-President Gore. Prime Minister Tony Blair's London is also, the actual enemy of the U.S.A. in Southwest Asia. What is now behind Blair is the actual enemy, of us, and of the people of Southwest Asia; Tony Blair's faction is the force either to be defeated, or made peaceful by gentler means.

On these two accounts, President Putin's policy respecting Iran's current response on the issue of Anglo-American efforts to extend the already ongoing general warfare in Southwest Asia, has been prudent, and some Iranian resistance to President Putin's counsel has been a potentially ominous, tactical blunder, the error of overlooking the dynamical character of the relevant, global strategic situation as a whole.

I explain, beginning with a presently still very relevant example from recent history.

Franklin Roosevelt's War
Adolf Hitler had been brought to power under the sponsorship and direction of the British monarchy and its Anglo-Dutch Liberal and French Synarchist accomplices, including leading pro-Mussolini and pro-Hitler financier circles within the U.S.A. President Franklin Roosevelt, understanding this to be the global strategic situation, played upon complications affecting Britain, to draw relevant earlier, British and other backers of Hitler, into the most difficult wartime alliance of Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and others, which defeated the Nazi aim at world conquest for a fascist world system under Hitler's reign.

However, speaking historically, the premature death of President Franklin Roosevelt, allowed the balance of power inside the U.S.A. itself, to be shifted away from Roosevelt's intended post-war uprooting of all vestiges of imperialistic colonial submission, toward a resumption of pro-imperialist power which U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower denounced as a "military-industrial complex." The insurrection staged by that "complex" resulted in the 1967-1972 shift of world power from the American System of political-economy typified by the Bretton Woods fixed-exchange-rate system, to a 1971-1981 London-dominated Anglo-Dutch Liberal shift into the ruin of the remains of the U.S. agro-industrial economy, thus driving the U.S.A. into an ultra-decadent, anti-science, anti-technology form of "post-industrial" wreckage called "globalization." That "globalization" is the essential, global enemy of our U.S.A.

The change in direction which was introduced under British leadership at the moment of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, was the first crucial step, by the pro-British, London-connected U.S. financier factions, toward an intended return to the domination of the world by the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of imperial monetarism. That Anglophile faction's intention, then, is expressed today by a system presented under the rubric of stateless "globalization," the system typified by former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore's ultra-malthusian "global warming swindle."

Thus, the trend presently typified by the long-standing, close affinity of folly between Al Gore with Britain's Prince Charles, has now brought the world economy to a monetary-financial and physical-economic breaking-point, at which existing forms of sovereign national government are pitted in mortal struggle, against the combination of worldwide financial collapse and physical economic breakdown, caused by the present spread of the effects of a form of intended global imperialism expressed as neo-malthusian "globalization." The continued existence of the sovereign nation-state as an institution anywhere, now demands a return to science-driven scientific and technological policy of practice by sovereign nation-states, everywhere.

Implicitly, at least, Russia's President Putin understands this. His government's repeated emphasis on the model of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, is crucially indicative. The essential enemies of civilization are typified today by the forces associated with the ideology expressed in its disgusting extreme by Prince Charles's Albert Gore. That is the enemy to be defeated.

To bring about that urgently needed defeat of Gore et al. now, the U.S.A. must be won over politically to the cause of its return to the policy-outlook represented by former President Franklin Roosevelt. Under that condition, the possibility of saving civilization during the foreseeable generations to come, demands an immediate, global coalition of forces built up around leading agreements reached among four keystone nations: an agreement on returning to what had been U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's pre-Truman intention for the post-1945 world: a cooperating system of respectively sovereign nation-states, united by a American-style, single, fixed-exchange-rate system covering, and promoting the development of the entirety of the planet.

Therefore, to put the point in the simplest decent way: strategically, all issues must be defined in respect to the necessary pathways of action through which to reach the point at which that decision, for a just new, world economic system of cooperative development, can be reestablished as the ruling system of relations among nations and peoples throughout the planet. The rallying of the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India, as leading sponsoring partners for a true United Nations program, is the indispensable pre-condition which must not be sacrificed for any other issue.

The Global Economic Crisis
Some leading circles within the U.S.A.'s leadership have repeatedly asked me the following type of question:

"We tend to agree with your strategic assessment of the global economic and monetary-financial situation. However, the situation is not politically ripe for the kind of reforms which, we agree, would be necessary for the future recovery of our economy. Can you not define a more modest, interim step, which we might use as a stop-gap?"

My best-informed questioners of that sort know, in fact, that the present world monetary-financial system is not merely bankrupt, but entering a state like that of Weimar Germany's monetary-financial system of late 1923. Only a new system, backed by U.S. gold, saved Germany (temporarily) then; only an equally sudden and drastic change, would save the U.S. economy from something far worse than an economic depression, a general breakdown-crisis, now. The present monetary-financial system can no longer be reformed; it must be replaced by a system operating as a bankrupt system, under the protection of receivership, under the provisions of the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution.

My questioners' concern is that the political machinery of the U.S. government is "not ready" to accept my leadership in designing and launching such a needed reform, even if there is not an available alternative, even for the continued existence of the U.S.A. as a nation.

The needed political element, on which such a U.S. reform would depend, in practice, is represented chiefly by the prospect of bringing together the governing forces of the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India, to serve as the principal committee of sponsors and initiators, of a general, virtually instantaneous reform of the world's economic system. An agreement of the type I know to be scientifically feasible, among those four leading powers, an agreement to a return to President Franklin Roosevelt's intention for a vigorously anti-colonialist, post-World War II Bretton Woods fixed-exchange-rate system, would immediately rally the principal amount of trading potential of the world, to a sufficient extent, to make necessary interim, emergency steps workable.

We must recognize that the genocidal lunacy of madman Al Gore's "globalization" schemes, can not be tolerated. We must recognize that the use of Southwest Asia as a cockpit for Anglo-Dutch Liberal schemes designed as a factor of strategic disruption, must be shut down, and that in a way in which only a core agreement among the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India could mobilize on short notice.

Thus, bringing the U.S.A. to a posture of immediate back-channel discussions among the representatives of the four indicated powers, and their obvious, closely associated smaller partners, is the essential, urgently needed remedy for both the current global economic-breakdown-crisis now in progress, and for assembling the strategic political will to shut down now all continued efforts at stirring the fires for worldwide war in the London-managed cockpit of Southwest Asia.

Therefore, we must define that historic ground as the choice of the battlefield on which to fight, and the issue on which we are fully prepared to fight to early victory for the benefit of humanity as a whole. In the meantime, avoid all wars which would divert the course of world affairs along different channels of history than that.

[moeen yaseen]

IRAN's RELEASE OF BRITISH SAILORS POSTPONED CONFRONTATION, BUT DID NOT HALT MOMENTUM TOWARDS WAR

Jeff Steinberg
http://larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/0405_armageddon.shtml# arma

The announcement this morning by Iran's President Ahmadinejad, that all 15 British sailors and marines detained last month would be released, delayed the building war climate in the Persian Gulf, but did not end the danger of a US-Iran clash. This was the assessment that LPAC received during the course of the day from a range of Arab and American sources.

According to one well-placed Egyptian source, the decision by both the British and Iranian governments to end the several week-long crisis, reflected the fact that neither the Anglo-American nor Iranian "war party" factions are ready at this time to provoke an actual military confrontation. The source indicated that such a showdown could likely occur at any point from the late Spring of this year on, but that a prolonged "hostage" crisis, extending for several months more, would have been pointless. However, he insisted that the circles of Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington have not, in the least, given up on the idea of a preventive bombing campaign against Iran, centered on the Islamic Republic's purported secret nuclear weapons program.

Both the Egyptian sources and several Washington-based sources cited the announcement by the Iranian government last week that President Ahmadinejad will soon deliver a major address, announcing "good news" about Iran's nuclear program, as one possible new turning point in the US-Iranian confrontation. Both sources warned that any expansion of Iran's nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz would be used by the Cheney faction in Washington and allied circles in Israel around former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as a justification for attacks.

Several other Arab sources contacted on Wednesday suggested that the decision to release the 15 British sailors and marines likely reflected a tactical victory by more moderate factions in the Iranian clergy, over hardliners who are convinced that an American attack is inevitable.

PRESIDENT CHENEY? HOW CLOSE IS ARMAGEDDON?
Jeff Steinberg

APRIL 4, 2100 HRS

The LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) has canvassed a number of very well-placed sources in Washington, including senior Republican Party figures, who confirm that President Bush's mental state is rapidly deteriorating. They cited public evidence of serious family frictions, and a "siege mentality" that has all-but taken over the White House, with key senior staff people leaving in droves, and with the President and his top aides now convinced that there is a concerted drive to force the resignation of some of President Bush's closest remaining confidants, starting with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Top Republican sources say that this "bunker mentality" is the explanation for the President's stubborn refusal to fire Gonzales, who has been repeatedly caught in lies surrounding the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys late last year. The President's state of mind suffered a serious setback when Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (Neb.), a possible GOP Presidential contender in 2008, made two public appearances, in which he spoke of the possibility of impeachment. Days after the Hagel remarks, Matt Dowd, a former top Bush aide in Texas and in the White House, published a blistering attack on the President's failure in Iraq in the New York Times. Dowd is now a top aide to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The rapid unravelling of the President's mental health has prompted Democratic Party statesman Lyndon LaRouche to warn of the dangers of allowing Vice President Dick Cheney to remain on the job another day. Unless Cheney is forced to resign or impeached, LaRouche warned, we could soon face the horror of a "President Dick Cheney," given George W. Bush's deteriorating condition. Given that the Vice President is the driving force behind still-operational plans for preventive attacks on Iran and Syria, the question that must legitimately be asked, LaRouche insisted, is: "How close is Armageddon?"

[moeen yaseen]

DOOMSDAY FOR THE GREENBACK

Mike Whitney
Global Research, April 11, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WHI200 70411&articleId=5341


“Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money.” Daniel Webster

The American people are in La-la land. If they had any idea of what the Federal Reserve was up to they’d be out on the streets waving fists and pitchforks. Instead, we go our business like nothing is wrong.

Are we really that stupid?

What is it that people don’t understand about the trade deficit? It’s not rocket science. The Current Account Deficit is over $800 billion a year. That means that we are spending more than we are making and savaging the dollar in the process. Presently, we need more than $2 billion of foreign investment per day just to keep the wheels from coming off the cart.

Everyone agrees that the current trade imbalances are unsustainable and will probably trigger major economic disruptions that will thrust us towards a global recession. Still, Washington and the Fed stubbornly resist any change in policy that might reduce over-consumption or reverse present trends.

It’s madness.

The investor class loves big deficits because they provide cheap credit for Bush’s lavish tax cuts and war. The recycling of dollars into US Treasuries and dollar-based securities is a neat way of covering government expenses and propping up the stock market with foreign cash. It’s a “win-win” situation for political elites and Wall Street. For the rest of us it’s a dead-loss.

The trade deficit puts downward pressure on the dollar and acts as a hidden tax. In fact, that’s what it is--a tax! Every day the deficit grows, more money is stolen from the retirements and life savings of working class Americans. It’s an inflation bombshell obscured by the bland rhetoric of “free markets” and deregulation.

Consider this: In 2002 the euro was $.87 on the dollar. Last Friday (4-6-07) it closed at $1.34-- a better than 50% gain for the euro in just 4 years. The same is true of gold. In April 2000, gold was selling for $279 per ounce. Last Friday, at the close of the market it skyrocketed to $679.50---more than double the price.

Gold isn’t going up; it’s simply a meter on the waning value of the dollar. The reality is that the dollar is tanking big-time, and the main culprit is the widening trade deficit.

The demolition of the dollar isn’t accidental. It’s part of a plan to shift wealth from one class to another and concentrate political power in the hands of a permanent ruling elite. There’s nothing particularly new about this and Bush and Greenspan have done nothing to conceal what they are doing. The massive expansion of the Federal government, the unfunded tax cuts, the low interest rates and the steep increases in the money supply have all been carried out in full-view of the American people. Nothing has been hidden. Neither the administration nor the Fed seem to care whether or not we know that we’re getting screwed --it’s just our tough luck. What they care about is the $3 trillion in wealth that has been transferred from wage slaves and pensioners to brandy-drooling plutocrats like Greenspan and his n’er-do-well friend, Bush.

These policies have had a devastating effect on the dollar which has been slumping since Bush took office in 2000. Now that foreign purchases of US debt are dropping off, the greenback could plunge to even greater depths. There’s really no way of knowing how far the dollar will fall.

That puts us at a crossroads. We are so utterly dependent on the “charity of strangers” (foreign investment) that a 9% blip in the Chinese stock market (or even a .25 basis point up-tick in the yen) sends Wall Street into a downward spiral. As the housing market continues to unwind, the stock market (which is loaded with collateralized mortgage debt) will naturally edge lower and foreign investment in US Treasuries and securities will dry up. That’ll be doomsday for the greenback as central banks across the planet will try to unload their stockpiles of dollars for gold or foreign currencies.

That day appears to be quickly approaching as the 3 powerhouse economies are overheating and need to raise interest rates to stifle inflation. This will make their bonds and currencies all the more attractive for foreign investment; diverting much needed credit from American markets.

Just imagine the effect on the already-hobbled housing market if interest rates were suddenly to climb higher to maintain the flow of foreign capital?

The ECB (European Central Bank), Japan and China are all cooperating in an effort to “gradually” deflate the dollar while minimizing its effects on the world economy. In fact, China even waited until the markets had closed on Good Friday to announce another interest rate increase. Clearly, the Chinese are trying to avoid a repeat of the 400 point one-day bloodbath on Wall Street in late February ‘07.

Japan has also tried to keep a lid on interest rates (and allowed the carry trade to persist) even though commercial property in Tokyo is “red hot” and liable to spark a ruinous cycle of speculation.

But how long can these booming economies avoid the interest rate hikes that are needed for curbing inflation in their own countries? The problem is, of course, that by fighting inflation at home they will ignite inflation in the US. In other words, by strengthening their own currencies they weaken the dollar--it’s unavoidable.

This is bound to hurt consumer spending in the US which will ripple through the entire global economy.

The problems presented by the falling dollar can’t be resolved by micromanaging or jawboning. In truth, there’s no more chance of a “soft landing” for the dollar than there is for the over-bloated real estate market. Greenspan’s bubble economy is headed for disaster and there’s not much that anyone can do to lessen the damage. As housing prices fall and homeowners are no longer able to tap into their equity, consumer spending will slow, the economy will shrink and the Fed will be forced to lower interest rates.

Unfortunately, at that point, lowering rates won’t be enough. Interest rates need at least 6 months to take hold and, by then, the steady drumbeat of foreclosures and falling real estate prices will have soured the public on an entire “asset class” for years to come. Many will see their life savings dribble away month by month as prices continue to nose-dive and equity vanishes into the ether. These are the real victims of Greenspan’s low interest rate swindle.

The Federal Reserve is fully aware of the harm they have inflicted with their low interest rate boondoggle. In a 2006 statement the Fed even acknowledged that they knew that trillions of dollars in speculation was being funneled into the real estate market:

"Like other asset prices, house prices are influenced by interest rates, and in some countries, the housing market is a key channel of monetary policy transmission."

“Monetary transmission” indeed?!? Trillions of dollars in mortgages were issued to people who have no chance of paying them back. It was a shameless scam. Still, the policy persisted in a desperate attempt to keep the US economy from collapsing into recession. The upshot of this misguided policy was “the largest equity bubble in history” which now threatens America’s economic solvency.

Author Benjamin Wallace commented on the Fed’s activities in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, “There Goes the Neighborhood: Why home prices are about to plummet—and take the recovery with them”:

"Let's assume for a moment that enough people get fooled, and the refinancing boom gets extended for another year. Then what? The real problem hits. Because if you think Greenspan's being cagey on refinancing, the truth he's really avoiding talking about is that we're in the midst of a huge housing bubble, on a scale only seen once before since the Depression. Worse, the inflated housing market is now in an historically unique position, as the motor of the rest of the economy. Within the next year or two, that bubble is likely to burst, and when it does, it very well may take the American economy down with it."

Or this from Robert Shiller in his “Irrational Exuberance”:

"People in much of the world are still overconfident that the stock market, and in many places the housing market, will do extremely well, and this overconfidence can lead to instability. Significant further rises in these markets could lead, eventually, to even more significant declines. The bad outcome could be that eventual declines would result in a substantial increase in the rate of personal bankruptcies, which could lead to a secondary string of bankruptcies of financial institutions as well. Another long-run consequence could be a decline in consumer and business confidence, and another, possibly worldwide, recession”.

If it is not handled properly, the housing collapse could result in another Great Depression. America no longer has the (manufacturing) capacity to work its way out of a deep recession. While the Fed was sluicing $11 trillion into the real estate market via low interest loans; America’s manufacturing sector was being carted off to China and India in the name of globalization. Without capital investment and increased factory production, economic recovery will be difficult if not impossible. The so-called “rebound” from the 2001 recession was due to artificially low interest rates and easy credit which inflated the housing market. It had nothing to do with increases in productivity, exports, or paying off old debts. In other words, the “recovery” was not real wealth creation but simply credit expansion. There’s a vast chasm between “productivity” and “consumption” although Greenspan never seemed to grasp the difference.


A penny borrowed is not the same as a penny earned—although both may cause a slight bump in GDP. Greenspan’s attitude was aptly summarized by The Daily Reckoning’s Addison Wiggin who said, “GDP measures debt-fueled consumption--it really only measures the rate at which America is going broke”.

Bingo.

America’s biggest export is its fiat-currency which foreigners are increasingly hesitant to accept.

Can you blame them?

They have begun to figure out that we have no way of repaying them and that the “full faith and credit” of the United States is about as reliable as a Ken Lay-managed 401-K retirement plan.

The fragility of the US economy will become more apparent as Greenspan’s housing bubble continues to lose air and consumer spending remains flat. As we noted earlier, home equity withdrawals are drying up which will slow growth and discourage foreign investment. The meltdown in subprime loans has drawn more attention to the maneuverings of the banks and mortgage lenders and many people are getting a clearer understanding of the Federal Reserve’s role in creating this economy-busting monster-bubble.

The 10% to 20% yearly increases in property values are unprecedented. They are “pure bubble” and have nothing to do with increases in wages, demand, productivity, capital investment or GDP. It was all “froth” generated by the world’s greatest Frothmeister, Alan Greenspan.

As Addison Wiggin notes, “There is only one real source of wealth: a healthy and competitive environment involving the exchange of goods coupled with control over deficit spending.”

Elites at the Federal Reserve and in the Bush administration have steered us away from this “tried and true” course and put us on the path to debt and catastrophe. It won’t be easy to restore our manufacturing base and compete again in the open market, but it must be done. Strong economies require that their people produce things that other people want. This is a fundamental truism that has been lost in the smoke and mirrors of Greenspan’s shenanigans at the Fed.

Regrettably, we are probably facing a decades-long economic downturn in which the dollar will weaken, stocks will fall, GDP will shrivel, and traditional standards of living will decline.

The trend-lines in the real estate market will most likely be the inverse of what they have been for the last 10 years. This will dramatically affect consumer spending (70% of GDP) and put additional pressure on the dollar.

The dollar is already in big trouble--the only thing keeping it afloat is foreign purchases of US debt by creditors who don’t want to be left holding trillions in worthless paper.(US debt is Japan’s single greatest asset!) These “net inflows” have created a false demand for the dollar which will inevitably dissipate as central banks continue to diversify.

Last week the IMF issued a warning that there would have to be a “substantial” decline in the dollar to bring the trade deficit to sustainable levels. That, of course, is the intention of the Fed and Team Bush—to reduce the debt-load by deflating the currency. It’s a crazy idea. No one destroys the buying power of their currency to pay off their debts. It just illustrates the recklessness of the people in charge.

Also, on March 20, 2007 the Governor of China’s Central Bank Zhou Xiaochuan announced “that China will not accumulate more foreign reserves and will cut a small amount of current reserves for the formulation of a new currency agency”. Zhou’s statement is a hammer-blow to the dollar. The US needs roughly $70 billion in foreign investment per month to cover its current trade deficit. China is one of the largest purchasers of US debt. If China diversifies, then the dollar will fall and the aftershocks will ripple through markets across the world.

The Chinese are very careful about how they word their economic statements. That’s why we should take Zhou’s comments seriously. Three weeks ago he issued an equally ominous statement saying, “China will diversify its $1 trillion foreign exchange reserves, the largest in the world, across different currencies and investment instruments, including in emerging markets.” (Reuters)

This should have been a red flag for currency traders, but the media buried the story and the markets dutifully shrugged it off. The truth is that our relationship with the Chinese is changing very quickly and the days of cheap credit and a “high-flying” dollar are coming to an end.

70% of China’s currency reserves are in US dollars. The effect of “diversification” will be devastating for the US economy. It increases the likelihood of hyperinflation at the same time the housing market is in its steepest decline in 80 years. When currency crises arise at the same time as economic crises; the problems are much more difficult to resolve.

Doomsday for the Greenback

It is impossible to fully anticipate the effects of the falling dollar. The dollar is a currency unlike any other and it is the cornerstone of American power—political, economic and military. As the internationally-accepted reserve currency, it allows the Federal Reserve to control the global economic system by creating credit out of “thin air” and using fiat-scrip in the purchase of valuable manufactured goods and resources. This puts an unelected body of private bankers in charge of setting interest rates which directly affect the entire world.

Iraq has proven that the US military can no longer enforce dollar-hegemony through force of arms. New alliances are forming that are reshaping the geopolitical landscape and signal the emergence of a multi-polar world. The decline of the superpower-model can be directly attributed to the denominating of vital resources and commodities in foreign currencies. America is simply losing its grip on the sources of energy upon which all industrial economies depend. Iraq is the tipping point for America’s global dominance.

When foreign central banks abandon the greenback the present system will unwind and the “unitary” model of world order will abruptly end.

This may be a painful experience for Americans who will undoubtedly see a sharp fall in current living standards. But it also presents an opportunity to disband the Federal Reserve and restore control of the nation’s currency to the people’s legitimate representatives in the US Congress.

This is the first step towards removing the cabal of powerbrokers in both political parties who solely represent the narrow ambitions of private interests.

The War on Terror is a public relations ploy that is intended to disguise the use of military and covert operations to secure dwindling resources to maintain dollar supremacy. It is a futile attempt to control the rise of China, India, Russia and the developing world while preserving the authority of western white elites.

The strength of the euro portends increasing competition for the dollar and a steady decline in America’s influence around the world. This should be seen as a positive development. Greater parity between the currencies suggests greater balance between the states--hence, more democracy. Again, the superpower model has only increased terrorism, militarism, human rights violations and war. By any objective standard, Washington has been a poor steward of global security.

The falling dollar also suggests growing political upheaval at home brought on by economic distress. We should welcome this. America needs to remake itself—to recommit to its original principles of personal freedom, civil liberties and social justice--to reject the demagoguery and warmongering of the Bush regime—to reestablish our belief in habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. Most important, we need to reclaim our honor.

Big changes are coming for the dollar; it’s just a matter of whether we allow those changes to bog us down in recriminations and pessimism or use them to create a new vision of America and restore the principles of republican government. It’s up to us.

[moeen yaseen]

WAR PROFITEERING AND THE CONCENTRATION OF INCOME AND WEALTH IN AMERICA

Prof. Ismael Hossein-zadeh
Global Research, April 13, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HOS200 70412&articleId=5368

How Escalation of War and Military Spending Are Used as Disguised or Roundabout Ways to Reverse the New Deal and Redistribute National Resources in Favor of the Wealthy.

Escalating Military Spending: Income Redistribution in Disguise

Critics of the recent U.S. wars of choice have long argued that they are all about oil. "No Blood for Oil" has been a rallying cry for most of the opponents of the war.

It can be demonstrated, however, that there is another (less obvious but perhaps more critical) factor behind the recent rise of U.S. military aggressions abroad: war profiteering by Pentagon contractors.

Frequently invoking dubious "threats to our national security and/or interests," these beneficiaries of war dividends, the military–industrial complex and related businesses whose interests are vested in the Pentagon’s appropriation of public money, have successfully used war and military spending to justify their lion’s share of tax dollars and to disguise their strategy of redistributing national income in their favor.

This cynical strategy of disguised redistribution of national resources from the bottom to the top is carried out by a combination of (a) drastic hikes in the Pentagon budget, and (b) equally drastic tax cuts for the wealthy. As this combination creates large budget deficits, it then forces cuts in non-military public spending as a way to fill the gaps that are thus created. As a result, the rich are growing considerably richer at the expense of middle– and low–income classes.

Despite its critical importance, most opponents of war seem to have given short shrift to the crucial role of the Pentagon budget and its contractors as major sources of war and militarism—a phenomenon that the late President Eisenhower warned against nearly half a century ago. Perhaps a major reason for this oversight is that critics of war and militarism tend to view the U.S. military force as primarily a means for imperialist gains—oil or otherwise.

The fact is, however, that as the U.S. military establishment has grown in size, it has also evolved in quality and character: it is no longer simply a means but, perhaps more importantly, an end in itself—an imperial force in its own right. Accordingly, the rising militarization of U.S. foreign policy in recent years is driven not so much by some general/abstract national interests as it is by the powerful special interests that are vested in the military capital, that is, war industries and war–related businesses.

The Magnitude of U.S. Military Spending

Even without the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are fast surpassing half a trillion dollars, U.S. military spending is now the largest item in the federal budget. Officially, it is the second highest item after Social Security payments. But Social Security is a self-financing trust fund. So, in reality, military spending is the highest budget item.

The Pentagon budget for the current fiscal year (2007) is about $456 billion. President Bush’s proposed increase of 10% for next year will raise this figure to over half a trillion dollars, that is, $501.6 billion for fiscal year 2008.

A proposed supplemental appropriation to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "brings proposed military spending for FY 2008 to $647.2 billion, the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II—higher than Vietnam, higher than Korea, higher than the peak of the Reagan buildup."[1]

Using official budget figures, William D. Hartung, Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York, provides a number of helpful comparisons:

Proposed U.S. military spending for FY 2008 is larger than military spending by all of the other nations in the world combined.
At $141.7 billion, this year's proposed spending on the Iraq war is larger than the military budgets of China and Russia combined. Total U.S. military spending for FY2008 is roughly ten times the military budget of the second largest military spending country in the world, China.
Proposed U.S. military spending is larger than the combined gross domestic products (GDP) of all 47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
The FY 2008 military budget proposal is more than 30 times higher than all spending on State Department operations and non-military foreign aid combined.
The FY 2008 military budget is over 120 times higher than the roughly $5 billion per year the U.S. government spends on combating global warming.
The FY 2008 military spending represents 58 cents out of every dollar spent by the U.S. government on discretionary programs: education, health, housing assistance, international affairs, natural resources and environment, justice, veterans’ benefits, science and space, transportation, training/employment and social services, economic development, and several more items.[2]
Although the official military budget already eats up the lion’s share of public money (crowding out vital domestic needs), it nonetheless grossly understates the true magnitude of military spending. The real national defense budget, according to Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, is nearly twice as much as the official budget. The reason for this understatement is that the official Department of Defense budget excludes not only the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also a number of other major cost items.[3]

These disguised cost items include budgets for the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security; nuclear weapons research and development, testing, and storage (placed in the Energy budget); veterans programs (in the Veteran’s Administration budget); most military retiree payments (in the Treasury budget); foreign military aid in the form of weapons grants for allies (in the State Department budget); interest payments on money borrowed to fund military programs in past years (in the Treasury budget); sales and property taxes at military bases (in local government budgets); and the hidden expenses of tax-free food, housing, and combat pay allowances.

After adding these camouflaged and misplaced expenses to the official Department of Defense budget, Higgs concludes: "I propose that in considering future defense budgetary costs, a well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon's (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it. You may overstate the truth, but if so, you'll not do so by much."[4]

Escalation of the Pentagon Budget and the Rising Fortunes of Its Contractors

The Bush administration’s escalation of war and military spending has been a boon for Pentagon contractors. That the fortunes of Pentagon contractors should rise in tandem with the rise of military spending is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is the fact that these profiteers of war and militarism have also played a critical role in creating the necessary conditions for war profiteering, that is, in instigating the escalation of the recent wars of choice and the concomitant boom of military spending.[5]

Giant arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman have been the main beneficiaries of the Pentagon’s spending bonanza. This is clearly reflected in the continuing rise of the value of their shares in the stock market:

"Shares of U.S. defense companies, which have nearly trebled since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, show no signs of slowing down. . . . The feeling that makers of ships, planes and weapons are just getting into their stride has driven shares of leading Pentagon contractors Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., and General Dynamics Corp. to all-time highs."[6]

Like its manufacturing contractors, the Pentagon’s fast-growing service contractors have equally been making fortunes by virtue of its tendency to shower private contractors with tax-payers’ money. These services are not limited to the relatively simple or routine tasks and responsibilities such food and sanitation services. More importantly, they include "contracts for services that are highly sophisticated [and] strategic in nature," such as the contracting of security services to corporate private armies, or modern day mercenaries. The rapid growth of the Pentagon’s service contracting is reflected (among other indicators) in these statistics: "In 1984, almost two-thirds of the contracting budget went for products rather than services. . . . By fiscal year 2003, 56 percent of Defense Department contracts paid for services rather than goods."[7]

The spoils of war and the devastation in Iraq have been so attractive that an extremely large number of war profiteers have set up shop in that country in order to participate in the booty: "There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield," reported The Washington Post in its 5 December 2006 issue.

The rise in the Pentagon contracting is, of course, a reflection of an overall policy and philosophy of outsourcing and privatizing that has become fashionable ever since President Reagan arrived in the White House in 1980. Reporting on some of the effects of this policy, Scott Shane and Ron Nixon of the New York Times recently wrote: "Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does."[8]

Redistributive Militarism: Escalation of Military Spending Redistributes Income from Bottom to Top

But while the Pentagon contractors and other beneficiaries of war dividends are showered with public money, low- and middle-income Americans are squeezed out of economic or subsistence resources in order to make up for the resulting budgetary shortfalls. For example, as the official Pentagon budget for 2008 fiscal year is projected to rise by more than 10 percent, or nearly $50 billion, "a total of 141 government programs will be eliminated or sharply reduced" to pay for the increase. These would include cuts in housing assistance for low-income seniors by 25 percent, home heating/energy assistance to low-income people by 18 percent, funding for community development grants by 12.7 percent, and grants for education and employment training by 8 percent.[9]

Combined with redistributive militarism and generous tax cuts for the wealthy, these cuts have further exacerbated the ominously growing income inequality that started under President Reagan. Ever since Reagan arrived in the White House in 1980, opponents of non-military public spending have been using an insidious strategy to cut social spending, to reverse the New Deal and other social safety net programs, and to redistribute national/public resources in favor of the wealthy. That cynical strategy consists of a combination of drastic increases in military spending coupled with equally drastic tax cuts for the wealthy. As this combination creates large budget deficits, it then forces cuts in non-military public spending (along with borrowing) to fill the gaps thus created.

For example, at the same time that President Bush is planning to raise military spending by $50 billion for the next fiscal year, he is also proposing to make his affluent-targeted tax cuts permanent at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years, or an average yearly cut of $160 billion. Simultaneously, "funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut a total of $114 billion" in order to pay for these handouts to the rich. The targeted discretionary programs to be cut include over 140 programs that provide support for the basic needs of low- and middle-income families such as elementary and secondary education, job training, environmental protection, veterans’ health care, medical research, Meals on Wheels, child care and HeadStart, low-income home energy assistance, and many more.[10]

According to the Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, "if the President's tax cuts are made permanent, households in the top 1 percent of the population (currently those with incomes over $400,000) will receive tax cuts averaging $67,000 a year by 2012. . . . The tax cuts for those with incomes of over $1 million a year would average $162,000 a year by 2012."[11]

Official macroeconomic figures show that, over the past five decades or so, government spending (at the federal, state and local levels) as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) has remained fairly steady—at about 20 percent. Given this nearly constant share of the public sector of national output/income, it is not surprising that increases in military spending have almost always been accompanied or followed by compensating decreases in non-military public spending, and vice versa.

For example, when by virtue of FDR’s New Deal reforms and LBJ’s metaphorical War on Poverty, the share of non-military government spending rose significantly the share of military spending declined accordingly. From the mid 1950s to the mid 1970s, the share of non-military government spending of GNP rose from 9.2 to 14.3 percent, an increase of 5.1 percent. During that time period, the share of military spending of GNP declined from 10.1 to 5.8 percent, a decline of 4.3 percent.[12]

That trend was reversed when President Reagan took office in 1980. In the early 1980s, as President Reagan drastically increased military spending, he also just as drastically lowered tax rates on higher incomes. The resulting large budget deficits were then paid for by more than a decade of steady cuts on non-military spending.

Likewise, the administration of President George W. Bush has been pursuing a similarly sinister fiscal policy of cutting non-military public spending in order to pay for the skyrocketing military spending and the generous tax cuts for the affluent.

Interestingly (though not surprisingly), changes in income inequality have mirrored changes in government spending priorities, as reflected in the fiscal policies of different administrations. Thus, when the share of non-military public spending rose relative to that of military spending from the mid 1950 to the mid 1970s, and the taxation system or policy remained relatively more progressive compared to what it is today, income inequality declined accordingly.

But as President Reagan reversed that fiscal policy by raising the share of military spending relative to non-military public spending and cutting taxes for the wealthy, income inequality also rose considerably. As Reagan’s twin policies of drastic increases in military spending and equally sweeping tax cuts for the rich were somewhat tempered in the 1990s, growth in income inequality slowed down accordingly. In the 2000s, however, the ominous trends that were left off by President Reagan have been picked up by President George W. Bush: increasing military spending, decreasing taxes for the rich, and (thereby) exacerbating income inequality (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Income Inequality in the U.S. (Gini Index), 1913-2004



Source: Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer, No. 114 (December 2006), p. 1

Leaving small, short-term fluctuations aside, Figure 1 shows two major peaks and a trough of the long-term picture of income inequality in the United States. The first peak was reached during the turbulent years of the Great Depression (1929–1933). But it soon began to decline with the implementation of the New Deal reforms in the mid 1930s. The ensuing decline continued almost unabated until 1968, at which time we note the lowest level of inequality.

After 1968, the improving trend in inequality changed course. But the reversal was not very perceptible until the early 1980s, after which time it began to accelerate—by virtue (or vice) of Reaganomics. Although the deterioration that was thus set in motion by the rise of neoliberalism and supply-side economics somewhat slowed down in the 1990s, it has once again gathered steam under President George W. Bush, and is fast approaching the peak of the Great Depression.

It is worth noting that even at its lowest level of 1968, income inequality was still quite lopsided: the richest 20 percent of households made as much as ten times more than the poorest 20 percent. But, as Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer points out, "that looks almost Swedish next to today’s ratio of fifteen times."[13]

The following are some specific statistics of how redistributive militarism and supply-side fiscal policies have exacerbated income inequality since the late 1970s and early 1980s—making after-tax income gaps wider than pre-tax ones. According to recently released data by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), since 1979 income gains among high-income households have dwarfed those of middle- and low-income households. Specifically:

The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000—for a total increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures are adjusted by CBO for inflation.)
By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively modest 21 percent, or $8,500, reaching $48,400 in 2004.
The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose just 6 percent, or $800, during this period, reaching $14,700 in 2004.[14]






Legislation enacted since 2001 has provided taxpayers with about $1 trillion in tax cuts over the past six years. These large tax reductions have made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal by further concentrating income at the top of the income range. According to the Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, as a result of the tax cuts enacted since 2001:

In 2006, households in the bottom fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts (averaging $20) that raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 0.3 percent.
Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts (averaging $740) that raised their after-tax incomes an average of 2.5 percent.
The top one percent of households received tax cuts in 2006 (averaging $44,200) that increased their after-tax income by an average of 5.4 percent.
Households with incomes exceeding $1 million received an average tax cut of $118,000 in 2006, which represented an increase of 6.0 percent in their after-tax income.[15]
Concluding Remarks: External Wars as Reflections of Domestic Fights over National Resources

Close scrutiny of the Pentagon budget shows that, ever since the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980, opponents of social spending have successfully used military spending as a regulatory mechanism to cut non-military public spending, to reverse the New Deal and other social safety net programs, and to redistribute national/public resources in favor of the wealthy.

Close examination of the dynamics of redistributive militarism also helps explain why powerful beneficiaries of the Pentagon budget prefer war and military spending to peace and non-military public spending: military spending benefits the wealthy whereas the benefits of non-military public spending would spread to wider social strata. It further helps explain why beneficiaries of war dividends frequently invent new enemies and new "threats to our national interests" in order to justify continued escalation of military spending.

Viewed in this light, militaristic tendencies to war abroad can be seen largely as reflections of the metaphorical domestic fights over allocation of public finance at home, of a subtle or insidious strategy to redistribute national resources from the bottom to the top.

Despite the critical role of redistributive militarism, or of the Pentagon budget, as a major driving force to war, most opponents of war have paid only scant attention to this crucial force behind the recent U.S. wars of choice. The reason for this oversight is probably due to the fact that most critics of war continue to view U.S. military force as simply or primarily a means to achieve certain imperialist ends, instead of having become an end in itself.

Yet, as the U.S. military establishment has grown in size, it has also evolved in quality and character: it is no longer simply a means but, perhaps more importantly, an end in itself, an imperial power in its own right, or to put it differently, it is a case of the tail wagging the dog—a phenomenon that the late President Eisenhower so presciently warned against.

Accordingly, rising militarization of U.S. foreign policy in recent years is driven not so much by some general/abstract national interests, or by the interests of Big Oil and other non-military transnational corporations (as most traditional theories of imperialism continue to argue), as it is by powerful special interests that are vested in the war industry and related war-induced businesses that need an atmosphere of war and militarism in order to justify their lion’s share of the public money.

Preservation, justification, and expansion of the military–industrial colossus, especially of the armaments industry and other Pentagon contractors, have become critical big business objectives in themselves. They have, indeed, become powerful driving forces behind the new, parasitic U.S. military imperialism. I call this new imperialism parasitic because its military adventures abroad are often prompted not so much by a desire to expand the empire’s wealth beyond the existing levels, as did the imperial powers of the past, but by a desire to appropriate the lion’s share of the existing wealth and treasure for the military establishment, especially for the war-profiteering contractors. In addition to being parasitic, the new U.S. military imperialism can also be called dual imperialism because not only does it exploit defenseless peoples and their resources abroad but also the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens and their resources at home. (I shall further elaborate on the historically unique characteristics of the Parasitic, dual U.S. military imperialism in another article.)


Ismael Hossein-zadeh is an economics professor at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. This article draws upon his recently published book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan Publishers). Professor Hossein-zadeh is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] William D. Hartung, "Bush Military Budget Highest Since WW II," Common Dreams (10 February 2007), http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0210-26.htm.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robert Higgs, "The Defense Budget Is Bigger Than You Think," antiwar.com (25 January 2004): http://www.antiwar.com/orig2/higgs012504.html.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ismael Hossein-zadeh, "Why the US is Not Leaving Iraq," http://www.cbpa.drake.edu/hossein%2Dzadeh/papers/papers.htm.

[6] Bill Rigby, "Defense stocks may jump higher with big profits," Reuter (12 April 2006), http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/12/defense_stocks_may_ jump_higher_with_big_profits/ .

[7] The Center for Public Integrity, "Outsourcing the Pentagon" (29 September 2004), http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/report.aspx?aid=385.

[8] Scott Shane and Ron Nixon, "In Washington, Contractors Take On Biggest Role Ever," The New York Times (4 February 2007), http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/washington/04contract.html.

[9] Faiz Shakir et al., Center for American Progress Action Fund, "The Progress Report" (6 February 2007), http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/02/deep_hock .html.

[10] Robert Greenstein, "Despite The Rhetoric, Budget Would Make Nation’s Fiscal Problems Worse And Further Widen Inequality", Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (6 February 2007), http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07bud.htm


[11] Ibid.

[12] Richard Du Boff, "What Military Spending Really Costs," Challenge 32 (September/October 1989), pp. 4–10.

[13] Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer, No. 114 (31 December 2006), p. 4.

[14] Congressional Budget Office, Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004, December 2006; as reported by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-07inc.htm.

[15] See Tax Policy Center tables T06-0273 and T06-0279 at www.taxpolicycenter.org.

[Emmanuel]

Its summed up perfectly in the title of this topic.
Love of Profits has started all the chaos that we see today. Love of Profits in a Godless society. (Atheist People)

The articles posted are interesting though very long, and makes my head hurt....

I am growing very weary of people who are so short sighted saying Religion has caused so many problems.
It is those men in authority who infiltrate places of worship and hijack reliigon not the teachings themselves that are corrupt.
The New World Order are quite happy for eveyone to be put off seeking spiritual understanding and to disconnect their connection with God, rather redirect it to a new product or a false dream.
Atheism has little hope if you want to fight the NWO.

[moeen yaseen]

Hi Jacob,

Your sentiments are shared. Modern man's alienation from God and replacement with Man's divinity inspired by SATANIC forces is the greatest folly of our times. In that respect those who are seeking to replace the NWO need to reflect in the Mirror of Consciousness and realise that these forces are also inspired by Satanic forces. There is no doubt in my mind that the belief in and assistance from God is our greatest strength in overcoming these forces which will whither into the
darkness from where they originate.
Whilst you are positive about this thread you state that the lengthy articles are causing a headache. Just a note to remind you that because those who wish to escape and liberate everyone from the NWO PRISONPLANET have an incomplete diagnosis of the problem the prescriptions recommended lead to a dead end. So I am afraid you have to realise that you need to be prepared to sacrifice much much more if you want to be FREE.

For instance you need to take on board and swallow the following prescription:- happy reeading and I hope your headache and heartache is relieved.


MONEY AS DEBT

Paul Grignon's 47 minute annimation - MONEY AS DEBT now available online

'Something very big is at stake''…an excellent overview of the greatest fraud of all time:

'MONEY AS DEBT'…Truth can set us Free!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...451279> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...2583451279

To quote:

''Whoever controls the volume of money in our
country is absolute master of all industry and
commerce…and when you realize that the entire
system is very easily controlled, one way or
another, by a few powerful men at the top, you
will not have to be told how periods of
inflation and depression originate''.

James A. Garfield, assassinated President of the U.S.A.
see http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=300