Last Days of the Republic
In a striking irony, F-18 fighter-bombers from the carrier “USS Eisenhower,” deadly AC-130 gunships from the US base at Djibouti, and Special Forces units attacked Somalia from sea, air and land. Other US units and FBI agents deployed on the Kenya-Somalia border. As America’s latest foreign war began with air strikes from the giant carrier that bears this great president’s name, no one seemed to recall President Dwight Eisenhower’s magnificent farewell address in 1961 to Americans in which he warned against foreign entanglements and the growing political influence of the military-industrial complex. #
It's about money. Not national security, not fighting terrorism. Money. That is what people are dieing for. Not so the people fighting can have it, but so the corporations which supply everything required for war can make even more ungodly profits.
They argue we are fighting terrorism abroad so we do not have to fight it here, that Saddam was a threat to us, had WMDs, that there are terrorists in Somalia, in Lebanon, in Iran. And as Americans do in this day and age, we swallow those justifications and brand those who ask unpopular questions crazed, or treasonous.
Of course the national intelligence estimate communicated that our invasion is actually creating more terrorists, and Bush's own government declared Saddam contained just months prior to the invasion. But such information is not good for business. There are terrorists in Somalia, and Lebanon, and Iran. Perhaps also in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, France, Italy.. Should we invade all of those countries? Or would more invasions just increase terrorism more? Perhaps we should just break out the nuclear missiles. Of course, if we turned every potentially threatening country into a uninhabitable wasteland there would be nobody to export weapons to anymore.
Lately I have become increasingly convinced America has too far strayed from its course at inception to ever return. At the end of World War II Americans wanted our newly created military disbanded. Our leaders convinced us it was a necessity for national survival, and we've been in small-scale conflicts ever since. Power has also shifted further towards the executive during this time. Something similar happened when Rome turned from republic to empire. Eventually the enemies Rome made along the way became too many for the mightiest armies of the day, and Rome fell.
An old piece of paper
At the birth of the United States a constitution was created to provide unquestionable law, to keep our government from ever disregarding the will of the people, and to balance power. One has to ask, what good is such a document if it is not enforced or followed?
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."
As Chalmers Johnson points out in The Sorrows of Empire, this statement is in fact what establishes America as a democracy. Our representatives are in charge of how the peoples' money is spent. Of course, we have completely ignored this since World War II. The CIA for example, is never required to inform congress of its expenditures. Now the provision about habeas corpus has also been ignored. It is also worth mentioning how over the last few decades congress has "rubber stamped" numerous pieces of legislation without even bothering to fully read it.
Days ago president Bush announced he would send more troops into Iraq, and send a second battle carrier group near Iran. Completely disregarding the will of the American people who he serves, of which only 12% support the troop surge. An escalation when the majority of the United States citizenry, congress, and military oppose it. ‘Consent of the governed’ indeed.
War Corporatism
In 2005 the United States accounted for 43% of global military spending. Fiscal year 2007 will see even higher numbers, hundreds of billions more than any other country on earth. Money, which will flow from taxpayers’ hands into the coffers of weapons manufacturers. These corporations are also responsible for almost half of world arms exports.
Connections to the arms industry is readily apparent when examining president Bush’s 2001 appointments at the pentagon. For example:
Undersecretary of the Air Force: Peter B. Teets, former president and chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin.
Secretary of the Army: Thomas E. White, former brigadier general, and corporate executive of Enron. (Resigned in 2003)
Secretary of the Navy: Gordon England, a vice president of General Dynamics
Secretary of the Air Force: James Roche, Northrop Grumman executive and retired brigadier general.
Vice President Dick Cheney is also well known for his previous position at Halliburton. Many would argue these people are qualified for their jobs, and collected useful experience in the arms industry. However, through either current positions or investments these people make great sums of money when weapons sales are up, such as during times of war. An obvious conflict of interest that in my mind at least, should disqualify them from such positions.
In this decade America jumped to over 725 military bases outside of the US, all supplied and built by those corporations. Also in this decade, the same people discounted as crazed during the deterrence of the cold war assumed control of the largest military force in human history, and force-fed Americans the doctrine of ‘preventative war’.
Silence speaks volumes. So does protest.
In the lead up to the Iraq war president Bush set an ominous record: 15 million people simultaneously took to the streets in protest of him, the most in human history to ever protest any person. This contrasted greatly with the silence that came from the American people, who are just now realizing the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
Matthew Good wrote a piece on his website in February 2002. It is to my knowledge the first article dealing with the events following September 11th that I quoted. At the time I could not fully understand its meaning, nor could I appreciate a few pieces of wisdom it presented. In it he posed the following question: “…Why in our times is it so important to put forth thoughts and wisdoms in a manner most pleasing to the mass populace just to ensure they understand it?"
Because the mass populace has become so used to sugar coating that anything real or questioning tastes bitter. That is my answer at least.
While we may realize Iraq was a mistake, the same dogma regarding the defense industry will likely remain until the fall of the American empire. An event I now see as inevitable, although the question remains of how large a crater the giant will make on impact.
So I write in some kind of hopeful delusion that I will be wrong, and the number of informed Americans will reach critical mass before the clock strikes midnight. Witching hour will be dark indeed.
It's about money. Not national security, not fighting terrorism. Money. That is what people are dieing for. Not so the people fighting can have it, but so the corporations which supply everything required for war can make even more ungodly profits.
They argue we are fighting terrorism abroad so we do not have to fight it here, that Saddam was a threat to us, had WMDs, that there are terrorists in Somalia, in Lebanon, in Iran. And as Americans do in this day and age, we swallow those justifications and brand those who ask unpopular questions crazed, or treasonous.
Of course the national intelligence estimate communicated that our invasion is actually creating more terrorists, and Bush's own government declared Saddam contained just months prior to the invasion. But such information is not good for business. There are terrorists in Somalia, and Lebanon, and Iran. Perhaps also in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, France, Italy.. Should we invade all of those countries? Or would more invasions just increase terrorism more? Perhaps we should just break out the nuclear missiles. Of course, if we turned every potentially threatening country into a uninhabitable wasteland there would be nobody to export weapons to anymore.
Lately I have become increasingly convinced America has too far strayed from its course at inception to ever return. At the end of World War II Americans wanted our newly created military disbanded. Our leaders convinced us it was a necessity for national survival, and we've been in small-scale conflicts ever since. Power has also shifted further towards the executive during this time. Something similar happened when Rome turned from republic to empire. Eventually the enemies Rome made along the way became too many for the mightiest armies of the day, and Rome fell.
An old piece of paper
At the birth of the United States a constitution was created to provide unquestionable law, to keep our government from ever disregarding the will of the people, and to balance power. One has to ask, what good is such a document if it is not enforced or followed?
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."
As Chalmers Johnson points out in The Sorrows of Empire, this statement is in fact what establishes America as a democracy. Our representatives are in charge of how the peoples' money is spent. Of course, we have completely ignored this since World War II. The CIA for example, is never required to inform congress of its expenditures. Now the provision about habeas corpus has also been ignored. It is also worth mentioning how over the last few decades congress has "rubber stamped" numerous pieces of legislation without even bothering to fully read it.
Days ago president Bush announced he would send more troops into Iraq, and send a second battle carrier group near Iran. Completely disregarding the will of the American people who he serves, of which only 12% support the troop surge. An escalation when the majority of the United States citizenry, congress, and military oppose it. ‘Consent of the governed’ indeed.
War Corporatism
In 2005 the United States accounted for 43% of global military spending. Fiscal year 2007 will see even higher numbers, hundreds of billions more than any other country on earth. Money, which will flow from taxpayers’ hands into the coffers of weapons manufacturers. These corporations are also responsible for almost half of world arms exports.
Connections to the arms industry is readily apparent when examining president Bush’s 2001 appointments at the pentagon. For example:
Undersecretary of the Air Force: Peter B. Teets, former president and chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin.
Secretary of the Army: Thomas E. White, former brigadier general, and corporate executive of Enron. (Resigned in 2003)
Secretary of the Navy: Gordon England, a vice president of General Dynamics
Secretary of the Air Force: James Roche, Northrop Grumman executive and retired brigadier general.
Vice President Dick Cheney is also well known for his previous position at Halliburton. Many would argue these people are qualified for their jobs, and collected useful experience in the arms industry. However, through either current positions or investments these people make great sums of money when weapons sales are up, such as during times of war. An obvious conflict of interest that in my mind at least, should disqualify them from such positions.
In this decade America jumped to over 725 military bases outside of the US, all supplied and built by those corporations. Also in this decade, the same people discounted as crazed during the deterrence of the cold war assumed control of the largest military force in human history, and force-fed Americans the doctrine of ‘preventative war’.
Silence speaks volumes. So does protest.
In the lead up to the Iraq war president Bush set an ominous record: 15 million people simultaneously took to the streets in protest of him, the most in human history to ever protest any person. This contrasted greatly with the silence that came from the American people, who are just now realizing the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
Matthew Good wrote a piece on his website in February 2002. It is to my knowledge the first article dealing with the events following September 11th that I quoted. At the time I could not fully understand its meaning, nor could I appreciate a few pieces of wisdom it presented. In it he posed the following question: “…Why in our times is it so important to put forth thoughts and wisdoms in a manner most pleasing to the mass populace just to ensure they understand it?"
Because the mass populace has become so used to sugar coating that anything real or questioning tastes bitter. That is my answer at least.
While we may realize Iraq was a mistake, the same dogma regarding the defense industry will likely remain until the fall of the American empire. An event I now see as inevitable, although the question remains of how large a crater the giant will make on impact.
So I write in some kind of hopeful delusion that I will be wrong, and the number of informed Americans will reach critical mass before the clock strikes midnight. Witching hour will be dark indeed.