Melancholy Reunion

Excerpts from: 'Melancholy Reunion: A Report from the Future on the Collapse of Civil-Military Relations in the United States'

"... "Melancholy Reunion" picks up where "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012" left off. The year is now 2017, and two years have elapsed since the countercoup that returned the U.S. government to civilian control. The speaker, addressing the twentieth reunion of the Air University classes of 1997, reflects on the civil-military environment in the late 1990s and the lessons learned from the Coup of 2012.

[ ... ]

The year is 2017. The United States has suffered not only defeats in the High-Tech War of 2007 and the Second Gulf War of 2010, but also a military coup in 2012. That coup, engineered by a highly politicized officer corps that blamed these bloody losses on "incompetent" civilian leaders, was initially welcomed by a public exasperated with elected government. Only a few years of repressive military rule had passed, however, before the countercoup in 2015. The chastened electorate placed the thoroughly disgraced armed forces under draconian civilian control.

The speaker in this essay addresses the twentieth reunion of the Air University classes of 1997, a rather melancholy event under the circumstances. He examines civil-military relations issues emerging in the 1996-1997 time frame that, with the benefit of twenty-first century hindsight, foretold the coming catastrophes.

The speaker argues that too many analysts in the 1990s wrongly concluded that the military's acceptance of shrinking defense budgets and the imposition of social policies on the armed forces "proved" civilian control was secure. Actually, America's still-sizable military, freed from its preoccupation with the Soviet threat, was politicizing rapidly. Still haunted by Vietnam despite the 1991 Gulf War victory, many in uniform believed that military officers needed to be much more active in the political process if "another Vietnam" was to be avoided. Eventually, skill at political infighting, not warfighting, became the mark of up-and-coming officers.

Politicization was hastened by a variety of factors, including the military's institutional drift from warfighting to a complex array of military operations other than war. Overlooked was the fact that officers who concentrate on activities other than war eventually become something other than warriors. Such officers also displace their dedication to the warrior ethic with a cultish devotion to commerce-oriented fads like total quality management.

[ ... ]

Just as the military's politicization was increasing, the nation came under the spell of "postmodern militarism." This phenomenon was not marked by overt military domination or even a societal embrace of martial virtues. Rather, it was characterized by the growing willingness of a militarily naive society to charge those in uniform with responsibilities that a democracy ought to leave to civilians.

The popular military assumed a wide variety of trendy noncombat activities ranging from drug interdiction at home to nation-building abroad, thereby leading to further politicization as the military insinuated itself into areas that were previously the exclusive province of civilian policymakers. All of this occurred as the formal institutions of civilian control--Congress and the executive branch--were losing the public's confidence. These institutions were further weakened by partisan squabbling, and this allowed a politically savvy military to accumulate enormous political clout.

Despite its growing popularity and political power, the professional military increasingly viewed civilian society as irresponsibly chaotic, crime-ridden, and morally corrupt. The alienated military also began to view itself as a higher caste than the society it was supposed to serve.

An increasingly self-righteous military began to see reforming America as its responsibility. This philosophy, termed "neopraetorianism" by the speaker, was abetted by officers infatuated with the idea that they were national ombudsmen with unlimited portfolios as opposed to military leaders with finite responsibilities. Moreover, the armed forces failed to appreciate that it was civil society's largess that insulated the military from the problems that burdened so many civilian communities.

Chaos and crime are the unfortunate by-products of individualism and freedom. However, it is those same qualities that fuel America's enormously successful economy which, in turn, sustains the military. The lesson of the Coup Trials of 2016, therefore, was that officers should not be commanders in the nation's culture wars. It is not the military's role to remake America in its own image.

[ ... ]

The youthful civilian elites who assumed power in the 1990s were wholly innocent of any genuine understanding of the powerful imperatives intrinsic to the armed forces. Moreover, these elites were not antimilitary, despite what many in uniform believed at the time. Of course, few of them considered military people their social or intellectual equals; rather, they viewed the armed forces with the kind of pretentious cordiality usually reserved for faithful servants. What they did appreciate was that the military was extraordinarily competent, and they reveled in the notion that it could do their bidding.

In actuality, both the elites and the public were in the embrace of "postmodern militarism." One writer back in 1994 described this phenomenon as follows:

Postmodern militarism is not marked by overt military dominance or even a societal embrace of martial values. Rather, it is characterized by a growing willingness of an increasingly militarily-naive society to charge those in uniform with responsibilities that a democracy ought to leave to civilians. It is a product of America's deep frustration and disgust with elected government's inability to work effectively, or to even labor honestly. The reason the military's approval rating far exceeds that of every other institution in American society--including, significantly, the ones expected to exercise civilian control--is quite simple: it gets good things done.

Embattled politicians are ever more frequently turning to the military for quick-fixes: Can't stop drugs? Call in the Navy. FEMA overwhelmed? Deploy the Airborne. Crime out of control? Put Guardsmen on the streets. Troubled youths? Marine role models and military boot camps. Need health care? Military medics to the rescue. Diplomats stumble again? Another Air Force mercy mission on the way. The unapologetically authoritarian military can "make the trains run on time," but at what price?

That question was never answered; the national discussion we needed in the 1990s never took place. This was especially unfortunate because the civilian institutions that were supposed to control the military were weakening. Congress' partisanship made it vulnerable to manipulation by politically astute military operatives who became expert at playing congressional factions against each other. The executive branch didn't fare much better. At the beginning of the Clinton administration, for example, there were numerous reports of open contempt by military personnel for their commander in chief. Although many observers believed the initial hostility later dissipated, President Clinton's continued vulnerability was illustrated by the uproar that followed an attempt by his lawyers to characterize him as a member of the armed forces to delay a lawsuit. Moreover, analysts were still asserting in 1996 that Clinton had not yet been able to "command" the Pentagon.

Instead, the military had become, as one commentator put it, "the most powerful individual actor in Washington politics." Part of the reason lay with the fact that the executive and legislative branches both labored under the shadow of Vietnam. Writing in May 1996, A.J. Bacevich of Johns Hopkins University observed the following:

Thirty years later, now elected to positions of prominence, those who evaded service now truckle and fawn to demonstrate the depth of their regard for men in uni-

form. . . . The military itself is only too happy to play along. The moral leverage embedded in "the troops" . . . provides the Pentagon with enormous political clout. Senior military leaders do not hesitate to exploit that clout for their own purposes.

Among military leaders, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is most senior. By the mid-1990s it was clear, as Defense News contended, that the chairman's "rising clout threaten[ed] civilian leaders."

[ ... ]

The youthful civilian elites who assumed power in the 1990s were wholly innocent of any genuine understanding of the powerful imperatives intrinsic to the armed forces. Moreover, these elites were not antimilitary, despite what many in uniform believed at the time. Of course, few of them considered military people their social or intellectual equals; rather, they viewed the armed forces with the kind of pretentious cordiality usually reserved for faithful servants. What they did appreciate was that the military was extraordinarily competent, and they reveled in the notion that it could do their bidding.

In actuality, both the elites and the public were in the embrace of "postmodern militarism." One writer back in 1994 described this phenomenon as follows:

Postmodern militarism is not marked by overt military dominance or even a societal embrace of martial values. Rather, it is characterized by a growing willingness of an increasingly militarily-naive society to charge those in uniform with responsibilities that a democracy ought to leave to civilians. It is a product of America's deep frustration and disgust with elected government's inability to work effectively, or to even labor honestly. The reason the military's approval rating far exceeds that of every other institution in American society--including, significantly, the ones expected to exercise civilian control--is quite simple: it gets good things done.

Embattled politicians are ever more frequently turning to the military for quick-fixes: Can't stop drugs? Call in the Navy. FEMA overwhelmed? Deploy the Airborne. Crime out of control? Put Guardsmen on the streets. Troubled youths? Marine role models and military boot camps. Need health care? Military medics to the rescue. Diplomats stumble again? Another Air Force mercy mission on the way. The unapologetically authoritarian military can "make the trains run on time," but at what price?

That question was never answered; the national discussion we needed in the 1990s never took place. This was especially unfortunate because the civilian institutions that were supposed to control the military were weakening. Congress' partisanship made it vulnerable to manipulation by politically astute military operatives who became expert at playing congressional factions against each other. The executive branch didn't fare much better. At the beginning of the Clinton administration, for example, there were numerous reports of open contempt by military personnel for their commander in chief. Although many observers believed the initial hostility later dissipated, President Clinton's continued vulnerability was illustrated by the uproar that followed an attempt by his lawyers to characterize him as a member of the armed forces to delay a lawsuit. Moreover, analysts were still asserting in 1996 that Clinton had not yet been able to "command" the Pentagon.

Instead, the military had become, as one commentator put it, "the most powerful individual actor in Washington politics." Part of the reason lay with the fact that the executive and legislative branches both labored under the shadow of Vietnam. Writing in May 1996, A.J. Bacevich of Johns Hopkins University observed the following:

Thirty years later, now elected to positions of prominence, those who evaded service now truckle and fawn to demonstrate the depth of their regard for men in uni-

form. . . . The military itself is only too happy to play along. The moral leverage embedded in "the troops" . . . provides the Pentagon with enormous political clout. Senior military leaders do not hesitate to exploit that clout for their own purposes.

Among military leaders, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is most senior. By the mid-1990s it was clear, as Defense News contended, that the chairman's "rising clout threaten[ed] civilian leaders." ..."

Mission creep: the militarizing of America

From the March 1996 issue of the Progressive Review

 

"...Perhaps all this isn't so surprising when one examines the real m'tier of a modern major general. It is not, after all, fighting wars -- for there doesn't exist an enemy capable of challenging us. The US defense budget is 120 times the combined strength of the nine next biggest military spenders, and 1,600 times that of six adversarial favorites: Cuba, Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya. In truth, the modern major general's trade consists of occupying, managing and manipulating weak and disorganized small countries, not infrequently primarily for domestic political reasons.

This is the trade for which Powell and McCaffrey were trained and helps explains why each feels comfortable in domestic politics. Where easier to practice the civil and psychological operations they mastered than right here at home?

[ ... ]

 

One of the ways the military conducts its domestic version of psychological and civil operations is to spy on American citizens. As far back the early 40s, for example, Army intelligence kept tabs on the likes of organizer Saul Alinsky. The practice blossomed with the civil rights and peace movements, possibly even, in the view of some investigators, including direct involvement of Army agents in the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

Today, the practice continues albeit in modern garb. According to the Computer Fraud and Security Bulletin, the National Security Agency is already spying on the Internet by "sniffing" data at key router and gateways hosts. NSA is also said to have made deals with Microsoft, Lotus and Netscape to prevent anonymous e-mail or encryption systems on the Net.

And last July, Charles Swett, who works for the Pentagon office handling "special operations and low intensity conflict" wrote an internal memo titled: Strategic Assessment: The Internet. The report, uncovered by the Federation of American Scientists, provides an overview of the Internet, particularly its usefulness for spying on both Americans and foreigners and for spreading disinformation during psychological operations.

[ ... ]

The military's extraordinary role in contemporary civilian life can be traced back at least to the Carter administration. In a July 1983 series in the San Francisco Examiner, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Knut Royce reported that a presidential directive had been drafted by a few Carter administration personnel in 1979 to allow the military to take control of the government for 90 days in the event of an emergency. A caveat on page one of the directive said, "Keeping the government functioning after a nuclear war is a secret, costly project that detractors claim jeopardizes US traditions and saves a privileged few." According to Royce there was a heated debate within the Carter administration as to just what constituted an "emergency."

The issue arose again during the Iran-Contra affair, but even in the wake of all the copy on that scandal, the public got little sense of how far some America's soldiers of fortune were willing to go to achieve their ends. When the Iran-Contra hearings came close to the matter, chair Senator Inouye backed swiftly away. Here is an excerpt from those hearings. Oliver North is at the witness table:

REP BROOKS: Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

BRENDAN SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman?

SEN INOUYE: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch on that.

REP BROOKS: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was the area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.

SEN INOUYE; May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements can be made for an executive session

With few exceptions, the media ignored what well could be the most startling revelation to have come out of the Iran/Contra affair, namely that high officials of the US government were planning a possible military/civilian coup. First among the exceptions was the Miami Herald, which on July 5, 1987, ran the story to which Jack Brooks referred. The article, by Alfonzo Chardy, revealed Oliver North's involvement in plans for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to take over federal, state and local functions during an ill-defined national emergency. ..."

[ full article ]

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012

"It goes without saying (I hope) that the coup scenario above is purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction. -- The Author "

"... In 1992, General Colin Powell, chairman of the joint chiefs, awarded the prize for his strategy essay competition at the National Defence University to Lieutenant Colonel Charles Dunlap for The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012. His cautionary tale imagined an incapable civilian government creating a vacuum that drew a competent military into a coup disastrous for democracy. The military, of course, is bound to uphold the constitution. But Dunlap wrote: "The catastrophe that occurred on our watch took place because we failed to speak out against policies we knew were wrong. It's too late for me to do any more. But it's not for you."

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 is today circulating among top US military strategists. ..."

America's military coup
Sidney Blumenthal
The Guardian - Thursday May 13, 2004

 

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012

CHARLES J. DUNLAP, JR.

From Parameters, Winter 1992-93, pp. 2-20.

The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States--the year is 2012--and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary. His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway. A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup. Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992. These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community. His letter survives and is here presented verbatim.

It goes without saying (I hope) that the coup scenario above is purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction. -- The Author

Dear Old Friend,

It's hard to believe that 20 years have passed since we graduated from the War College! Remember the great discussions, the trips, the parties, the people? Those were the days!!! I'm not having quite as much fun anymore. You've heard about the Sedition Trials? Yeah, I was one of those arrested--convicted of "disloyal statements," and "using contemptuous language towards officials." Disloyal? No. Contemptuous? You bet! With General Brutus in charge it's not hard to be contemptuous.

I've got to hand it to Brutus, he's ingenious. After the President died he somehow "persuaded" the Vice President not to take the oath of office. Did we then have a President or not? A real "Constitutional Conundrum" the papers called it.[1] Brutus created just enough ambiguity to convince everyone that as the senior military officer, he could--and should--declare himself Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces. Remember what he said? "Had to fill the power vacuum." And Brutus showed he really knew how to use power: he declared martial law, "postponed" the elections, got the Vice President to "retire," and even moved into the White House! "More efficient to work from there," he said. Remember that?

When Congress convened that last time and managed to pass the Referendum Act, I really got my hopes up. But when the Referendum approved Brutus's takeover, I knew we were in serious trouble. I caused a ruckus, you know, trying to organize a protest. Then the Security Forces picked me up. My quickie "trial" was a joke. The sentence? Well, let's just say you won't have to save any beer for me at next year's reunion. Since it doesn't look like I'll be seeing you again, I thought I'd write everything down and try to get it to you.

I am calling my paper the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." I think it's important to get the truth recorded before they rewrite history. If we're ever going to get our freedom back, we've got to understand how we got into this mess. People need to understand that the armed forces exist to support and defend government, not to be the government. Faced with intractable national problems on one hand, and an energetic and capable military on the other, it can be all too seductive to start viewing the military as a cost-effective solution. We made a terrible mistake when we allowed the armed forces to be diverted from their original purpose.

I found a box of my notes and clippings from our War College days--told my keepers I needed them to write the confession they want. It's amazing; looking through these old papers makes me realize that even back in 1992 we should have seen this coming. The seeds of this outrage were all there; we just didn't realize how they would grow. But isn't that always the way with things like this? Somebody once said that "the true watersheds in human affairs are seldom spotted amid the tumult of headlines broadcast on the hour."[2] And we had a lot of headlines back in the '90s to distract us: The economy was in the dumps, crime was rising, schools were deteriorating, drug use was rampant, the environment was in trouble, and political scandals were occurring almost daily. Still, there was some good news: the end of the Cold War as well as America's recent victory over Iraq.

All of this and more contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves today: a military that controls government and one that, ironically, can't fight. It wasn't any single cause that led us to this point. Instead, it was a combination of several different developments, the beginnings of which were evident in 1992. Here's what I think happened:

Americans became exasperated with democracy. We were disillusioned with the apparent inability of elected government to solve the nation's dilemmas. We were looking for someone or something that could produce workable answers. The one institution of government in which the people retained faith was the military. Buoyed by the military's obvious competence in the First Gulf War, the public increasingly turned to it for solutions to the country's problems. Americans called for an acceleration of trends begun in the 1980s: tasking the military with a variety of new, nontraditional missions, and vastly escalating its commitment to formerly ancillary duties.

Though not obvious at the time, the cumulative effect of these new responsibilities was to incorporate the military into the political process to an unprecedented degree. These additional assignments also had the perverse effect of diverting focus and resources from the military's central mission of combat training and warfighting. Finally, organizational, political, and societal changes served to alter the American military's culture. Today's military is not the one we knew when we graduated from the War College.

Let me explain how I came to these conclusions. In 1992 not very many people would've thought a military coup d'etat could ever happen here. Sure, there were eccentric conspiracy theorists who saw the Pentagon's hand in the assassination of President Kennedy,[3] President Nixon's downfall,[4] and similar events. But even the most avid believers had to admit that no outright military takeover had ever occurred before now. Heeding Washington's admonitions in his Farewell address about the dangers of overgrown military establishments,[5] Americans generally viewed their armed forces with a judicious mixture of respect and wariness.[6] For over two centuries that vigilance was rewarded, and most Americans came to consider the very notion of a military coup preposterous. Historian Andrew Janos captured the conventional view of the latter half of the 20th century in this clipping I saved:

A coup d'etat in the United States would be too fantastic to contemplate, not only because few would actually entertain the idea, but also because the bulk of the people are strongly attached to the prevailing political system and would rise in defense of a political leader even though they might not like him. The environment most hospitable to coups d'etat is one in which political apathy prevails as the dominant style.[7]

However, when Janos wrote that back in 1964, 61.9 percent of the electorate voted. Since then voter participation has steadily declined. By 1988 only 50.1 percent of the eligible voters cast a ballot.[8] Simple extrapolation of those numbers to last spring's Referendum would have predicted almost exactly the turnout. It was precisely reversed from that of 1964: 61.9 percent of the electorate did not vote.

America's societal malaise was readily apparent in 1992. Seventy-eight percent of Americans believed the country was on the "wrong track." One researcher declared that social indicators were at their lowest level in 20 years and insisted "something [was] coming loose in the social infrastructure." The nation was frustrated and angry about its problems.[9]

America wanted solutions and democratically elected government wasn't providing them.[10] The country suffered from a "deep pessimism about politicians and government after years of broken promises."[11] David Finkle observed in The Washington Post Magazine that for most Americans "the perception of government is that it has evolved from something that provides democracy's framework into something that provides obstacles, from something to celebrate into something to ignore." Likewise, politicians and their proposals seemed stale and repetitive. Millions of voters gave up hope of finding answers.[12] The "environment of apathy" Janos characterized as a precursor to a coup had arrived....

[ full paper ]

ABC: Holt disappearance theories resurrected online

"... It is close to the 40th anniversary of the unsolved disappearance of Australia's 17th prime minister, but the conspiracy theories will not go away.

The sensational disappearance of former prime minister Harold Holt, off a remote Victorian beach in December 1967, captured the world's attention.

But the lack of a body led to an avalanche of wild and persistent theories about Mr Holt's exit.

Many ascribed to Cold War scenarios - others had more earthy tones that he had faked his death.

Some theorists were so earnest they put pen to paper and alerted authorities, with the best letters now online after being released by the National Archives.

On December 17 of that year, Mr Holt went missing in rough seas whilst swimming at a favoured spot, Victoria's Cheviot Beach.

Police soon concluded it was an accidental drowning of an experienced swimmer in dreadful conditions, a theory that was confirmed in a belated Victorian coronial inquest in 2005.

But something did not quite add up for the conspiracy theorists.

A letter from an American lawyer, dated the day after Mr Holt's disappearance, reads: "My hunch from fragmentary press reports is there's a better-than 50 per cent chance that Mr Holt's death was not accidental, but resulted from expert sabotage, probably foreign."

It is a sample of the Cold War theories which can now be found on the National Archives website.

[ ... ]

"The most outrageous theory was the Chinese submarine," he said.

"It's long since been demonstrated that there was no way a submarine could have operated in those waters off Cheviot Beach.

"Anyway as [his wife] Zara Holt said, Harold Holt didn't even like Chinese cooking." ..."

[ full article ]

Ray McGovern: Bush, Oil -- and Moral Bankruptcy

On Sept. 23, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warned pointedly:

“If we escalate tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war [with Iran], which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for us...I think the administration, the president and the vice president particularly, are trying to hype the atmosphere, and that is reminiscent of what preceded the war in Iraq.”

So why the pressure for a wider war in which any victory will be Pyrrhic—for Israel and for the U.S.? The short answer is arrogant stupidity; the longer answer—what the Chinese used to call “great power chauvinism”—and oil.

The truth can slip out when erstwhile functionaries write their memoirs (the dense pages of George Tenet’s tome being the exception). Kudos to the still functioning reportorial side of the Washington Post, which on Sept. 15, was the first to ferret out the gem in former Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan’s book that the Iraq war was “largely about oil.”

But that’s okay, said the Post’s editorial side (which has done yeoman service as the White House’s Pravda) the very next day. Dominating the op-ed page was a turgid piece by Henry Kissinger, serving chiefly as a reminder that there is an excellent case to be made for retiring when one reaches the age of statutory senility.

Dr. Kissinger described as a “truism” the notion that “the industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend.” (Curious. That same truism was considered a bad thing, when an integral part of the “Brezhnev Doctrine” applied to Eastern Europe.)

What is important here is that Kissinger was speaking of Iran, which—in a classic example of pot calling kettle black—he accuses of “seeking regional hegemony.”

What’s going on here seems to be a concerted effort to get us accustomed to the prospect of a long, and possibly expanded war.

Don’t you remember? Those terrorists, or Iraqis, or Iranians, or jihadists...whoever...are trying to destroy our way of life.

The White House spin machine is determined to justify the war in ways they think will draw popular support from folks like the well-heeled man who asked me querulously before a large audience, “Don’t you agree that several GIs killed each week is a small price to pay for the oil we need?”

Consistency in U.S. Policy?

The Bush policy toward the Middle East is at the same time consistent with, and a marked departure from, the U.S. approach since the end of World War II.

Given ever-growing U.S. dependence on imported oil, priority has always been given to ensuring the uninterrupted supply of oil, as well as securing the state of Israel. The U.S. was, by and large, successful in achieving these goals through traditional diplomacy and commerce.

Granted, it would overthrow duly elected governments, when it felt it necessary—as in Iran in 1953, after its president nationalized the oil. But the George W. Bush administration is the first to start a major war to implement U.S. policy in the region.

Just before the March 2003 attack, Chas Freeman, U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia for President George H.W. Bush, explained that the new policy was to maintain a lock on the world’s energy lifeline and be able to deny access to global competitors.

Freeman said the new Bush administration “believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them” and that, with the end of the Cold War, the U.S. is uniquely able to shape global events—and would be remiss if it did not do so.

This could not be attempted in a world of two superpowers, but has been a longstanding goal of the people closest to George W. Bush.

In 1975 in Harpers, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger authored under a pseudonym an article, “Seizing Arab Oil.”

Blissfully unaware that the author was his boss, the highly respected career ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, committed the mother of all faux pas when he told a TV audience that whoever wrote that article had to be a “madman.”  Akins was right; he was also fired.

In those days, cooler heads prevailed, thanks largely to the deterrent effect of a then-powerful Soviet Union. Nevertheless, in proof of the axiom that bad ideas never die, 26 years later Kissinger rose Phoenix-like to urge a spanking new president to stoke and exploit the fears engendered by 9/11, associate Iraq with that catastrophe, and seize the moment to attack Iraq.

It was well known that Iraq’s armed forces were no match for ours, and the Soviet Union had imploded.

Some, I suppose, would call that Realpolitik. Akins saw it as folly; his handicap was that he was steeped in the history, politics, and culture of the Middle East after serving in Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, as well as Saudi Arabia—and knew better.

The renaissance of Kissinger’s influence in 2001 on an impressionable young president, together with faith-based analysis by untutored ideologues cherry picked by Cheney explain what happened next—an unnecessary, counterproductive war, in which over 3,800 U. S. troops have already been killed—leaving Iraq prostrate and exhausted.

A-plus in Chutzpah, F in Ethics

In an International Herald Tribune op-ed on Feb. 25, 2007, Kissinger focused on threats in the Middle East to “global oil supplies” and the need for a “diplomatic phase,” since the war had long since turned sour. Acknowledging that he had supported the use of force against Iraq, he proceeded to boost chutzpah to unprecedented heights.

Kissinger referred piously to the Thirty Years’ War (1618-48), which left the European continent “prostrate and exhausted.” What he failed to point out is that the significance of that prolonged carnage lies precisely in how it finally brought Europeans to their senses; that is, in how it ended.

The Treaty of Westphalia brought the mutual slaughter to an end, and for centuries prevented many a new attack by the strong on the weak—like the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003.

It was, it is about oil—unabashedly and shamefully. Even to those lacking experience with U.S. policy in the Middle East, it should have been obvious early on, when every one of Bush’s senior national security officials spoke verbatim from the talking-point sheet, “It’s not about oil.”

Thanks to Greenspan and Kissinger, the truth is now “largely” available to those who do not seek refuge in denial.

The implications for the future are clear—for Iraq and Iran. As far as this administration is concerned (and as Kissinger himself has written), “Withdrawal [from Iraq] is not an option.” Westphalia? U.N. Charter? Geneva Conventions? Hey, we’re talking superpower!

Thus, Greenspan last Monday with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now:

“Getting him [Saddam Hussein] out of the control position...was essential. And whether that be done by one means or another was not as important. But it’s clear to me that, were there not the oil resources in Iraq, the whole picture...would have been different.”

Can we handle the truth?

“All truth passes through three stages.
“First, it is ridiculed.
“Second, it is violently opposed.
“Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
--Schopenhauer

When the truth about our country’s policy becomes clear, can we summon the courage to address it from a moral perspective? The Germans left it up to the churches; the churches collaborated.

“There is only us; there never has been any other.”
--Annie Dillard

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC.  He was an analyst with the CIA for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). His e-mail is RRMcGovern@aol.com.

[ Link ]

The end of the world as we know it: Get Ready

America is now poised for an event that has happened elsewhere in the world but never, for living Americans, here on US soil. That event is a hyperinflation that will destroy our savings, milking Americans dry. Those who planned this event have been in charge of the monetary system, and in charge of every branch of government. While occupying those positions of trust they have profited mightily. Now, many of those who believed they were 'insiders' will face a reality that confronts them with the fact that they, too, have been had. Their employers have used them to immunize themselves as they prepared to move off shore, convert their stolen assets into Swiss Francs, hard money, and commodities, hunkering down to ride it out as they slurp champagne.--Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

 

By Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
Online Journal Guest Writer
Sep 25, 2007,

The mortgage market is draining away one portion of American savings while the Securities and Exchange Commission finalizes the enabling of hedge funds and limited partnerships like Blackstone Group, to suck out the pensions and secured savings that elderly Americans thought would carry them through to the end of life, leaving a nest egg for their children and grandchildren. Those in power did not forget other kinds of savings, including those intended to educate our children. It was all up for grabs. To protect yourself and those you love you need to see the world, not as they present it to us, but as it appears to them.

We are the bees. They control our hive.

The Corporate Greedy and BigOil, think they have won; they did all within their power to convert our form of government from a representative republic made up of independent states to a serial monarchy/oligarchy. They busily changed the meaning of words, for instance converting the word “Conservative” to Big Government Federalist for a start.

You may also still believe that communism was a real threat to America instead of another boogeyman intended to keep us in line. You may still believe that a tiny insane cabal of Muslims, individuals who had been marginalized in their own countries, are a threat to us. It is time to lose your illusions.

Iraq is about the oil. The only surge those in power really care about is the one being carried out by the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the other forms of control for installing what they hope will be the militarized ground they intend to turn into one large plantation that they call the North American Union. Think of it, and us, as their long-term investment strategy.

The hyper inflation now beginning is intended to make us helpless, unable to resist, focused on stark survival, as they staple in place a new, overt form of government on the savaged bones of our Constitution.

Those plans, as reflected in the words, “Security and Prosperity Partnership” are about just that. For their own children they want not prosperity but the culmination of their own fantasies: a guaranteed, unending flow of money and security. The partnership is for the Corporate Greedy only.

You and I are not to be the beneficiaries of that flow. Our purpose in their eyes is to either produce the wealth, be consumed, or conveniently die.

The Corporate Greedy have been eating us alive for generations. By doing so they worked to provide for those future generations of trust fund brats with no character, morals or clue about the work ethic -- more George W. Bushes, more little Murdochs and Rockefellers. For that purpose they have driven America into bankruptcy, using all of the institutions we paid for and thought were intended to provide security for us, the real Americans, and our families.

Like the movie, “The Matrix,” it is very simple when you understand.

This hyperinflation cycle is the corporate beekeepers harvesting the hive. They are now harvesting America, making room for those of us who survive, to produce more. At the same time they are looking at which bees are likely to give them the best return. They intend that the 'useless eaters,' the elderly, the lowest income people, the inconveniently political, die.

After they finish harvesting, America will be a third world country. The North American Union will be in place to act as their conduit for rebuilding on very different lines, smugly expecting us to be grateful for the opportunity to simply survive and serve.

Hyperinflation is one of their tools that shows you what is about to happen. It has been used before. Stan Mikhalsky experienced the hyperinflation that took place in the Soviet Union. Here is his story.

By Stan Mikhalsky

It started in November 1985. The Soviet Union had been shaken by a tsunami of deaths as one after another, starting in 1982, Party leaders died in office. First Brezhnev, then Andropov followed by Chernenko. Never had the Soviet Union seen so many deaths just in three years.

Then, suddenly, a new guy, younger, eager, and unexpected . . . Gorbachev, came into office.

The 70s in Soviet Union had been marked as years of prosperity and peace. Ordinary people had prospered. Then, in 1979, we found ourselves at war in Afghanistan and the world changed.

When I stepped on American soil in 1996 I had the same feeling of those fat, happy years of the 70s in the Soviet Union. Yet in the back of my mind I wondered. I was worried because I knew how that time of peace and prosperity had ended. Putting that aside I figuratively rolled up my sleeves and got to work; good times mean profits and there was much I wanted for my family, much they needed after the trauma we had survived in the Ukraine.

Those fat years of the 70s in the Soviet Union had been followed by a long nightmare, one I see beginning here in America.

Gorbachev had been in office just a couple months when he ratified a new bills exchange. A bills exchange means exchanging the currency then in use for different money.

Well, you could ask, that is normal in many countries, right? Normal? Maybe. But the outcome was like they had pumped us dry of savings. Going through it was torture, seeing the savings of a lifetime drained in days, weeks, or months.

Current denominations of fifties and hundreds could be exchanged for new bills for only three days and only 500 Rubles could be exchanged at one time. So, what is a big deal?

Many honest people in the Soviet Union had escaped scrutiny, moving into the burgeoning middle class, by keeping their profits in cash. For example, at the time there were many 'underground milliners' whose enterprises were not in sync with ruling Communist Party. These were "illegal activities" though they harmed no one.

Gorbachev had decided, alone or based on advice, to kill these people as a class. And that action -- bills exchange -- killed a segment of the middle class in Soviet Union.

The artificial currency exchange ratio (at the beginning of the Gorbachev tenure) was 69 kopeek (lowest USSR currency) for 1 US Dollar. It wasn't real, of course. In reality there were people who dealt with foreigners, buying from them and then selling to the general population (jeans, for example). These entrepreneurs were called "farcovshiki." Farcovshiki were risking their lives to support their families. The penalty for these activities were up to 15 years in prison, the same sentence that was applied by criminal law to rapists and killers.

To live in the Soviet Union was to live with danger. To be in business we needed to have a real currency, real US Dollars and Deutsch Marks. The new exchange rate had risen to 3 Rubles per US Dollar.

In the wake of these events, people were literally hiding their money under pillows, afraid to put their funds in the bank. The biggest USSR Savings Bank loomed as a threat to all savings. Instead those funds were kept close at hand, buried in a backyard or hidden in the attic. Imagine what shock we felt when it was announced the new bills would be valid and old ones void in three days!

Just like in the United States, there are always people who worked hard to build businesses and support their families. In the Soviet Union we called those people, who were like my parents, "hard working communists." Like all law abiding citizens they kept their hard-earned money in the USSR Savings Bank. At that time they had enough money in the bank to support them in comfort in their retirement. So, in a sense, these money were US 401K plans equivalent."

1985, everything changed. They figured out how to reach into the places we had used to hide the money we hoped would give us security.

The 'free market' overwhelmed formerly Soviet Union citizens. Overnight the world had changed, some for the good and some not. Now we, ordinary people, could say what we wanted, not just in own kitchens but out loud in public. Our world grew larger. Freedom gave us the ability to see beyond the borders of the USSR. Now we saw the world as it had appeared to Party leaders, the Military Elite, and their friends. We could see R-rated movies and read different opinions.

However, with this new freedom brought with it hyperinflation, gangsters, and crooks. Inflation was no longer controlled as it had been before. Because Gorbachev said that the "Free Market" was subject to any forces that came, by 1989 the Ruble had fallen to a value only 1/6th that of the US Dollar.

By 1991 the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and Ukraine had become independent. That led to more instability and new rounds of inflation through currency manipulation.

As an independent nation, the Ukraine decided to have its own currency. That 'currency,' which we called, 'coupons,' was printed on low quality paper and was easily reproduced in basements using Xerox machines. Counterfeit currency became a reality, dooming the Coupons. Rubles were highly valuable in exchange because Russia had a strong infrastructure.

The Ukraine, on the other hand, had and has today, an economy based largely on agriculture.

There, Russia and Ukraine found a common ground. Ukrainians carried their bags of farm food to Moscow, where Muscovites bought with pleasure. Moscow, without a strong agricultural economy, was suffering from a reliable food supply. This was a win-win outcome for both with Moscow getting their food and Small-Russia, the name often given to the Eastern Ukraine, receiving Rubles for radishes.

However, trade and the possibility of profit stopped in August 19, 1991. The coup in Moscow severed these connections with the Ukraine.

Inflation was like an avalanche, a tsunami that destroyed businesses and savings. Before long the Ukraine announced a new currency and, on paper, everyone in Ukraine became a millionaire as the value of our Coupons plummeted to 200,000 to 1 against the US Dollar. Money in your pocket was worth less every moment. We lived in a state of perpetual uncertainty and shock.

Half-legal currency exchange became a very profitable business. You could go to special a market and exchange your life savings, packaged now in packs of coupons with rubber bands, for crispy "greens." Greens were US dollars. Most prized were crispy new greens; This bias tremendously helped counterfeit US currency to conquer our shaky post-Soviet market.

Some of you may wonder why we needed US dollars in a first place? Well, because borders were much more open than before; many entrepreneurs started trade with other countries and former Soviet Union Republics, making the dollar the only currency we could use to trade. All of us were having the same problems with currency.

Then, in the end of 1995, a new Ukrainian currency arrived. That was the Grivnya. It was a better quality banknote that exchanged elsewhere in ratio 1 Grivnya = 100,000 Coupons. It brought some stability for a short while. Far from perfect, the new currency was again counterfeited; these then flooded the markets. Inflation continued to escalate.

During the 1996-2001 period the Grivnya continued to lose its value until the US Dollar itself began to slip. What had been 1 US Dollar to 6 Grivnyas became 2 Grivnyas per Dollar.

Today, it is finally stable and the dollar is losing its luster. And there begins the warning I need to share with you.

There are parallels in those years I lived through in the Ukraine with what I see and sense with the current US market situation.

The law of "survival of the fittest" is still in power. You need to prepare yourself for what may come from uncontrollable US inflation and staggering political instability. Do as many of us, having survived through so many rounds of instability learned to do. Do not hold on to currency. Instead, buy and hold raw products and commodities.

In all countries that painted the map of the Europe after Soviet Union and later, Yugoslavia separation, the oligarchy raised their wealth on these natural products. Some of the oligarchs came from banking industry but in general – oil, gas, colored metals, and media. I am pretty sure that this pattern will apply to any future independent states with economics in turmoil.

Get ready. It will happen here.

The problem that we face in America at this minute is what Stan and other citizens of the Soviet Union faced, but for us that is only a part of the story. After the inflation we will be facing a new world, now being created to control us by the same people who are harvesting the hive of American wealth as I write.

To survive and provide the softest landing possible for Americans we need to take action as follows.

At the local level you need to get out of debt. If you can't pay off your credit cards to big corporations don't feel bad; their grid has been one of the conduits for stealing placed intentionally to put Americans into their control. The reason they changed the bankruptcy laws was because they knew where they were taking us. Pay off your mortgage if possible or find the means for at least lowering your exposure by moving to a fixed interest rate loan.

Get ready to look for the investment opportunities that will soon be available to ordinary people for lower cost alternatives in energy, transportation, and other off-grid technologies. They are coming. Every home that gets off their grids strikes a blow for freedom. Look at all the grids, energy, transportation, water, food, credit, insurance, medical. Understand how they bind you; there are solutions to each of these. You can break free.

Look at where you live. Can you grow your own food? Look into starting a co-op, bringing in locally grown farm food. Join with those around you; this will build a community of cooperation that will bring both security and provide the means for local control.

Growing and eating locally will reduce your exposure to reliance on food that is shipped in from off shore, perhaps bringing in with it diseases or toxic substances, and also mean more security for you and those around you in a steady, clean, supply of food.

Growing your own food has many other benefits; many generations of Americans did just that. Learn more about what you can do along with others in your community. Local food, vegetables and meat, taste better and do not carry the additives that we are slowly learning have had drastic physiological impacts on our health.

Make sure you know what your children are learning. Schools now routinely turn out students who are functionally illiterate, suited only for the kinds of jobs they envision for our posterity. Dumbing down was part of their agenda.

The planning began in California with the Reagan's election as governor there. Examine what you think you know. We were all conned, often and early.

The best indicator for future success in life is how early you have your first job, not how many degrees you accumulate; education has become about symbols over substance. Tesla had no degrees and never attended college. This generation of children will be finding out what it means to work the hard way. Nothing about the policies that have extended childhood far into the twenties have been about protecting children; those policies are about control

At the same time you need to come together with others in your community to take back control. Use persuasion; true community is about including and caring for everyone voluntarily.

Look at your local police. You pay their salaries. If they are focused on a militarized agenda, converting you and other citizens into criminalized targets, ignoring your constitutional rights under the coloration of 'gang control' you need to take action. The Constitution is for all of us.

The individuals hired as police need to understand that the militarized agenda for control will not be tolerated. Deliver the message.

We need to take back control of our courts. Understand the bait and switch that took place and study the common law that is America's real heritage for enacting justice and lowering the transaction costs of conflict and crime. A crime has not taken place if there is no victim.

The sheriff in your county is the highest constitutional law enforcement authority. If you can't trust him, remove him and elect someone who will be willing and able to tell the Feds to stay out. Expect them to move rapidly on their agenda to assert control over regional areas and state governments. Be ready to react accordingly.

Lastly, start thinking about the many ways that same Corporate Elite has conned us, manipulated us, continue their predatory behavior. Through the stock market, through the mortgage industry grab, through the continued rackets they run in every place they touch our lives.

Count up what they have cost you, when, where and who. Make a record. Gather together all of those accounts that show how they have stolen from you, done all within their power to suck you dry. .

There will be an accounting and you need to be ready.

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is the granddaughter of Arthur C. Pillsbury. AC invented the first circuit panorama camera as his senior project at Stanford in 1896 while majoring in Mechanical Engineering. She has been studying the market and economics through the filter of politics and anthropology for twenty years. Her political blog is How the NeoCons Stole Freedom. She is presently working on a book titled, “Off the Grids to Freedom in One Easy Lesson.”

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/09/the_end_of_the_3.html

The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America's Ambitions in Eurasia

"... As a result of the Anglo-American drive to encircle and ultimately dismantle China and Russia, Moscow and Beijing have joined ranks and the SCO has slowly evolved and emerged in the heart of Eurasia as a powerful international body. 

The main objectives of the SCO are defensive in nature. The economic objectives of the SCO are to integrate and unite Eurasian economies against the economic and financial onslaught and manipulation from the “Trilateral” of North America, Western Europe, and Japan, which controls significant portions of the global economy.

The SCO charter was also created, using Western national security jargon, to combat “terrorism, separatism, and extremism.” Terrorist activities, separatist movements, and extremist movements in Russia, China, and Central Asia are all forces traditionally nurtured, funded, armed, and covertly supported by the British and the U.S. governments. Several separatist and extremist groups that have destabilized SCO members even have offices in London.

 

Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia are all SCO observer members. The observer status of Iran in the SCO is misleading. Iran is a de facto member. The observer status is intended to hide the nature of trilateral cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China so that the SCO cannot be labeled and demonized as an anti-American or anti-Western military grouping.

 

The stated interests of China and Russia are to ensure the continuity of a “Multi-Polar World.” Zbigniew Brzezinski prefigured in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives and warned against the creation or “emergence of a hostile [Eurasian-based] coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy.” [3] He also called this potential Eurasian coalition an “‘antihegemonic’ alliance” that would be formed from a “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” with China as its linchpin. [4] This is the SCO and several Eurasian groups that are connected to the SCO. ..."

 

[ full article ]

Seymour M. Hersh: The Administration's plan for Iran

"...Many of those who support the President’s policy argue that Iran poses an imminent threat. In a recent essay in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz depicted President Ahmadinejad as a revolutionary, “like Hitler . . . whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it . . . with a new order dominated by Iran. . . . [T]he plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force.” Podhoretz concluded, “I pray with all my heart” that President Bush “will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel.” Podhoretz recently told politico.com that he had met with the President for about forty-five minutes to urge him to take military action against Iran, and believed that “Bush is going to hit” Iran before leaving office. (Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, is a strong backer of Rudolph Giuliani’s Presidential campaign, and his son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, is a senior adviser to President Bush on national security.)

In early August, Army Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, told the Times about an increase in attacks involving explosively formed penetrators, a type of lethal bomb that discharges a semi-molten copper slug that can rip through the armor of Humvees. The Times reported that U.S. intelligence and technical analyses indicated that Shiite militias had obtained the bombs from Iran. Odierno said that Iranians had been “surging support” over the past three or four months.

Questions remain, however, about the provenance of weapons in Iraq, especially given the rampant black market in arms. David Kay, a former C.I.A. adviser and the chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations, told me that his inspection team was astonished, in the aftermath of both Iraq wars, by “the huge amounts of arms” it found circulating among civilians and military personnel throughout the country. He recalled seeing stockpiles of explosively formed penetrators, as well as charges that had been recovered from unexploded American cluster bombs. Arms had also been supplied years ago by the Iranians to their Shiite allies in southern Iraq who had been persecuted by the Baath Party.

[ ... ]

The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities.

“Cheney’s option is now for a fast in and out—for surgical strikes,” the former senior American intelligence official told me. The Joint Chiefs have turned to the Navy, he said, which had been chafing over its role in the Air Force-dominated air war in Iraq. “The Navy’s planes, ships, and cruise missiles are in place in the Gulf and operating daily. They’ve got everything they need—even AWACS are in place and the targets in Iran have been programmed. The Navy is flying FA-18 missions every day in the Gulf.” There are also plans to hit Iran’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile sites. “We’ve got to get a path in and a path out,” the former official said.

A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he called “short, sharp incursions” by American Special Forces units into suspected Iranian training sites. He said, “Cheney is devoted to this, no question.”

A limited bombing attack of this sort “only makes sense if the intelligence is good,” the consultant said. If the targets are not clearly defined, the bombing “will start as limited, but then there will be an ‘escalation special.’ Planners will say that we have to deal with Hezbollah here and Syria there. The goal will be to hit the cue ball one time and have all the balls go in the pocket. But add-ons are always there in strike planning.” ..."

[ full article ]