Election 2012, Time for Some Bitter Medicine

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

US Debt is Result of Excessive Military/Security Spending

The United States is smothering under a mountain of debt. By far the largest contributor to that negative ink is the cost of maintaining a veritable global empire.[1]  Rather than a so-called Defense Department, the US has developed a “War Department” or what might better be termed a military/security (M/S) complex which when all of the related and supporting expenses are included costs at least $1.2 trillion/year. At just short of 30% of the annual US budget, this sum represents the largest category by percent of total federal spending, exceeding the costs of Medicare and Social Security respectively.

US Military/Security Spending is Irrational

Moreover, US yearly defense spending alone exceeds the total of the next 17 largest military budgets in the world. By any reasonable metric, this degree of military spending is excessive. When American national security including intelligence spending are added to direct military spending the total surpasses the military/security budgets of all the developed nations on Earth combined. Such an outlay is completely irrational even if the main goal of the United States is to remain the pre-eminent global superpower.

Attempting to continue this degree of M/S spending can only result in total economic collapse of the United States, an outcome which is clearly incompatible with the desire to remain the supreme global hegemonic force. It is clear from a consideration of the mathematics involved that no amount of austerity with regard to Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlement programs + markedly increasing taxes[2] on the wealthy, and or elimination of corporate (welfare) tax subsidies will come close to reducing our national debt and budget deficit problems without a drastic reduction in M/S spending.[3]

Excessive M/S Spending Makes US Less Competitive Globally

It is crucial to recognize that money spent on the military/security complex is lost forever to the national economy in the aggregate. While individuals and corporations may benefit greatly as a result of M/S spending, the vast majority of Americans are poorer for it since money spent in this way is unavailable for improvements in infrastructure, education, transportation, technology, research and development etc., things that other nations with much lower expenses in M/S are able to surpass us in.

The question which begs to be asked then is why does this insanity continue? If doing so can only lead to economic collapse, why do we not change it? Surely it must be obvious to those in power that the status quo cannot continue. Does the corporate/governmental complex or conglomerate not realize that our current course will sooner rather than later end in default? Of course they do. But they can afford literally not to care.

Multinational Corporations Eschew Nation States

The reason is that the ruling elite, the new Plutocrats have become true global citizens who need no national boundaries, citizenship or localized base of operations. It matters little to them whether they live in the United States or somewhere else. Their companies are multi or inter-national, perhaps better termed supra-national and their markets are global. They roam the Earth in search of the cheapest labor forces possible while availing themselves of “free-markets” a euphemism for the privilege of not being charged a tax or tariff for selling their products to consumers many of whom lost their jobs to the slave labor the multinational corporations avail themselves of.[4]

These companies find the geographical locations which advertise the cheapest labor and the lowest corporate taxes where they manufacture their products and sell them worldwide; demanding unfettered that is, unregulated markets. They literally demand not to be penalized for assembling their goods utilizing immoral and (in the US) illegal labor practices.

Free-Trade is Rigged (Unjust) Trade

These so-called free-trader’s or marketeers are advocates of unfair or unjust trade in which they alone benefit while the vast majority of those to whom they sell their goods lose their jobs, experience a reduced standard of living and become unable to take advantage of the lower prices that allegedly occur as a result of off-shoring of production and out-sourcing of labor—the original argument utilized to justify the practice. It is a total sham, a rigged game which benefits only the select few Plutocrats who now control the United States and much of the West. What this really means is that the American Empire exists to make this unjust and immoral arrangement more palatable (whether through persuasion or threat of armed aggression) to those who would otherwise object.

Excessive Military/Security Spending Benefits Plutocracy[5]

Thus, we do not alter our insane M/S budget because it insures that our ruling Plutocrats will be able to continue for a bit longer solidifying their incredible wealth. When the United States finally implodes, they will simply move elsewhere with their foreign factories, work forces and non-US markets intact. By then, their business in Brazil, China, India, and elsewhere will have matured to the point that they will be able to survive nicely without those which once existed in America.

Britain serves as a case in point when a nation decides to dismantle its empire in a controlled fashion rather than allow it to completely implode. On the other hand imperial Rome demonstrates what happens when instead of ending its Militarism and gross over-reach, an empire continues with the status quo until it falls. It would be much better if we could emulate Great Britain rather than ancient Rome.

Quick Summary:

1) Multinational Corporations are not limited to nation states, they are not interested in or for the most part affected by patriotic sentiments, geographical locations, fixed work forces, local customs, traditions or politics.

2) Multinational Corporations are larger than ever and now control the 6 largest industries in the United States including; Energy, Banking/Wall Street, Health Care/Pharmaceutical, Agriculture, Military/Security, Media/Entertainment.

3) Multinational Corporations now control the American political process including the Legislative and Executive branches due in part to the Citizens United case decided recently by the USSC in favor of unlimited corporate political donations without the need to provide complete transparency of contributions.

4) Because of number 1-3 above, the American constitutional representative democratic republic brought into being in 1789 has been replaced by a kind of Plutocracy which unites the largest multinational corporations and the government. It exists for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the many. It could legitimately be termed a Fascist state.

Recommendations:


1) Reduce Defense/Security Spending by >50%.

2) End Clandestine Operations portion of CIA, DIA, and NSA etc. and return the CIA to its original purpose of providing only intelligence information gathering to be used by President and Cabinet. President Kennedy wanted to do this and in part was killed for it.

3) Immediately end all US wars including occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, drone attacks in Pakistan and support of NATO in Libya and any other similar activities which do not represent legitimate defensive response to unjust offensive attacks by nation states. Handle foreign based terrorism as a police action and end the intellectually/factually baseless global war on terror. All of these will make the risk of serious terrorist attack on the United States much less likely. Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security as it will be unnecessary once we end the foreign wars and begin treating the Palestinians fairly.

4) Raise income taxes for those American's with an annual income of >$250K and place at least a 50% tax on all individual earned and unearned income exceeding $5 million dollars per annum.

5) End all unfair trade agreements which allow the goods manufactured by multinational corporations assembled by slave laborers to be imported to the US without punitive tariffs. Decrease the power of large corporations and increase necessary regulation of key banking, energy companies. End "to big to fail banks."

6) End the Federal Reserve and begin the practice of printing US legal tender directly thus avoiding the paying of interest to a private entity. Consider returning to a precious mineral based currency such as the gold standard eliminated by President Nixon.

7) End corporate welfare for well-established industries such as those based upon fossil fuels. Federally subsidize the creation of an alternative energy industry in the United States through use of natural gas and wind power as suggested by T. Boone Pickens.

8) Create a National Health Care System which guarantees affordable care to all Americans. End the health care monopoly that the private insurance industry currently enjoys. Strongly consider a single payer system in which monies are payed to actual providers of care not to needless "middlemen" and eliminate wasteful and unnecessary medico-legally related defensive medical practices through reform of medical malpractice laws.

9) Link Israeli foreign aid to their observing the internationally recognized 1967 boundaries as outlined by the UN. Insist that Israel ends its occupation of Arab Palestinian Land. This has the added effect of lessening the likelihood that the USA will be subjected to foreign terrorist attacks.

10) Replace anyone in Congress and the White House who does not accept the above. Strongly consider a third party Independent Ticket challenge to President Obama and the Republican nominee.

NOTES:

[1] At last count we have over 900 foreign military bases of various sizes that require ongoing support.
[2] A tax increase back to Clinton administration era levels for those Americans with an annual income >250K would help as would a special tax for multimillionaires and billionaires of >50% on all annual income exceeding $5 million including capital gains. It would not however, alone or in combination with cuts to Medicare and Social Security be sufficient to eliminate future budget deficits or end the national debt completely by a time certain e.g. 2030.
[3] The ridiculously small amount recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates of roughly $40 billion is ludicrous and fails to address the main issue which is that the US can no longer afford a global empire.
[4] While in isolation this behavior might see economically wise, it is morally repugnant and violates the first two principle of the Natural Moral Law; Do good/avoid evil and treat your neighbor fairly.
[5] In this context I mean a Regime controlled by the super-rich, a fascist amalgam of powerful corporations and government. In 20th century Germany it was termed National Socialism. This would be a variant.

Ray McGovern Acuses Hillary Clinton of "War Mongering": United States Behaving Like Last Stage of Roman Empire

Editor's NOTE:

What's wrong with this picture?  How can a nation which is effectively bankrupt, facing over 14 trillion dollars in national debt (the highest in the world), think it can spend in excess of 1 trillion dollars annually on its national security state?  This represents over 66% of the annual discretionary budget of the United States, most of which is in truth not only unnecessary but immoral!

The situation increasingly resembles the last dieing days of the Roman Empire.  Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty was correct over 25 years ago when he wrote his book; The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World  which was apparently censored by the CIA. At that time he indicated that the United States had been taken over by a "high cabal" on November 22, 1963 and it has undoubtedly been in control ever since.

Americans citizens must--through the use of all available non-violent means--try to stop the permament US warfare state before it is literally too late. Failure to do so makes us complicit in the immoral actions of our nation carried out in our names and with our tax dollars. Write your Congressional delegations and the President and express your strong opposition today.

I salute the courage and moral commitment of Ray McGovern for doing what we should all be doing. Please read his piece below.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert


Standing Up to War and Hillary Clinton

By Ray McGovern
Consortiumnews
February 23, 2011

It was not until Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walked to the George Washington University podium last week to enthusiastic applause that I decided I had to dissociate myself from the obsequious adulation of a person responsible for so much death, suffering and destruction.

I was reminded of a spring day in Atlanta almost five years earlier when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld strutted onto a similar stage to loud acclaim from another enraptured audience.

Introducing Rumsfeld on May 4, 2006, the president of the Southern Center for International Policy in Atlanta highlighted his “honesty.” I had just reviewed my notes for an address I was scheduled to give that evening in Atlanta and, alas, the notes demonstrated his dishonesty.

I thought to myself, if there’s an opportunity for Q & A after his speech I might try to stand and ask a question, which is what happened. I engaged in a four-minute impromptu debate with Rumsfeld on Iraq War lies, an exchange that was carried on cable TV.

That experience leaped to mind on Feb. 15, as Secretary Clinton strode onstage amid similar adulation.

The fulsome praise for Clinton from GW’s president and the loud, sustained applause also brought to mind a phrase that – as a former Soviet analyst at CIA – I often read in Pravda. When reprinting the text of speeches by high Soviet officials, the Communist Party newspaper would regularly insert, in italicized parentheses: “Burniye applaudismenti; vce stoyat” — Stormy applause; all rise.

With the others at Clinton’s talk, I stood. I even clapped politely. But as the applause dragged on, I began to feel like a real phony. So, when the others finally sat down, I remained standing silently, motionless, wearing my "Veterans for Peace" T-shirt, with my eyes fixed narrowly on the rear of the auditorium and my back to the Secretary.

I did not expect what followed: a violent assault in full view of madam secretary by what we Soviet analysts used to call the “organs of state security.” The rest is history, as they say. A short account of the incident can be found here.

Callous Aplomb

As the video of the event shows, Secretary Clinton did not miss a beat in her speech as she called for authoritarian governments to show respect for dissent and to refrain from violence. She spoke with what seemed to be an especially chilly sang froid, as she ignored my silent protest and the violent assault which took place right in front of her.

The experience gave me personal confirmation of the impression that I reluctantly had drawn from watching her behavior and its consequences over the past decade. The incident was a kind of metaphor of the much worse violence that Secretary Clinton has coolly countenanced against others.

Again and again, Hillary Clinton – both as a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State – has demonstrated a nonchalant readiness to unleash the vast destructiveness of American military power. The charitable explanation, I suppose, is that she knows nothing of war from direct personal experience.

And that is also true of her husband, her colleague Robert Gates at the Defense Department, President Barack Obama, and most of the White House functionaries blithely making decisions to squander the lives and limbs of young soldiers in foreign adventures — conflicts that even the top brass admit cannot be won with weapons.

The analogy to Vietnam is inescapable. As White House tapes from the 1960s show, President Lyndon Johnson knew that the Vietnam War could not be “won” in any meaningful way.


Nonetheless, Johnson kept throwing hundreds of thousands into the battle lest someone accuse him of being soft on communism. I had an inside seat watching Johnson do that. And I did nothing.

Now, with an even more jittery president, a hawkish Secretary of State, the much-acclaimed field marshal David Petraeus, and various Republican presidential hopefuls – all jockeying for political position as the 2012 election draws near – the country is in even deeper trouble today.

No one on this political merry-go-round can afford to appear weak on terrorism. So, they all have covered their bets. And we all know who pays the price for these political calculations.

This time, I would NOT do nothing.

My colleagues in Veterans for Peace and I have known far too many comrades-in-arms and their families whose lives have been shattered or ended as a result of such crass political maneuvering.

Many of us veterans know more than we wish to know about war and killing. But — try as we may with letters and other appeals — we cannot get through to President Obama. And Secretary Clinton turns her own deaf ear to our entreaties and those from others who oppose unnecessary warfare, a pattern that she also followed in her days as a U.S. senator from New York.

See No Evil

In the summer of 2002, as the Senate was preparing to conduct hearings about alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and the possibility of war, former Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq and U.S. Marine Major, Scott Ritter, came down to Washington from his home in upstate New York to share his first-hand knowledge with as many senators as possible.

To those that let him in the door, he showed that the “intelligence” adduced to support U.S. claims that Iraq still had WMD was fatally flawed. This was the same “intelligence” that Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller later branded “unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton would not let Ritter in her door. Despite his unique insights as a U.N. inspector and his status as a constituent, Sen. Clinton gave him the royal run-around. Her message was clear: “Don’t bother me with the facts.” She had already made up her mind.

I had a direct line into her inner circle at the time, and was assured that several of my op-eds and other commentaries skeptical of George W. Bush’s planned invasion were given to Clinton, but no matter.

Sen. Clinton reportedly was not among the handful of legislators who took the trouble to read the National Intelligence Estimate on WMD in Iraq that was issued on Oct. 1, 2002, just ten days before she voted to authorize war.

In short, she chose not to perform the due diligence required prior to making a decision having life-or-death consequences for thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. She knew whom she needed to cater to, and what she felt she had to do.

But, bright as she is, Hillary Clinton is prone to huge mistakes — political, as well as strategic. In dissing those of us who were trying to warn her that an attack on Iraq would have catastrophic consequences, she simply willed us to be wrong.

Clearly, her calculation was that she had to appear super-strong on defense in order to win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency in 2008. Just as clearly, courting Israel and the Likud Lobby was also important to her political ambitions.

Blair Admits Israeli Role

Any lingering doubt that Israel played a major role in the U.S.- U.K. decision to attack Iraq was dispelled a year ago when former Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke publicly about the Israeli input into the all-important Bush-Blair deliberations on Iraq in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.

Inexplicably, Blair forgot his usual discretion when it comes to disclosing important facts to the public and blurted out some truth at the Chilcot hearings in London regarding the origins of the Iraq War:

“As I recall that [April 2002] discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us [Bush and Blair], whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this.”

According to Philip Zelikow – a former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and later counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice – the "real threat" from Iraq was not to the United States.

Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002, the "unstated threat" from Iraq was the "threat against Israel.” He added, "The American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

But it wasn’t as though leading Israelis were disguising their war aims. The current Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu published a pre-invasion piece titled “The case for Toppling Saddam” in the Wall Street Journal.

"Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do," Netanyahu declared. "I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam's regime."

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported in February 2003, "the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.”

As a retired Israeli general later put it, "Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq's non-conventional [WMD] capabilities."

In the United States, neoconservatives also pushed for war thinking that taking out Saddam Hussein would make Israel more secure.

These Israeli leaders and their neocon allies got their wish on March 19, 2003, with the U.S.-U.K. invasion.

Of course, pressure from Israel and its Lobby was not the only factor behind the invasion of Iraq — think also oil, military bases, various political ambitions, revenge, etc. — but the Israeli factor was critical.

A Calculating Senator

I’m afraid, though, that these calculations aimed at enhancing Israeli security may ultimately have the opposite effect. The Iraq War and the anti-Americanism that it has engendered across the Middle East seem sure to make Israel’s position in the region even more precarious.

If the Iraq War does end up making the region more dangerous for Israel, the fault will lie with Israel’s hard-line leaders, as well as with those American officials (and media pundits) who so eagerly clambered onboard for the attack on Iraq.

One of those U.S. officials was the calculating senator from New York.

In a kind of poetic justice, Clinton’s politically motivated warmongering became a key factor in her losing the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, who as a young state senator in Illinois spoke out against the war.

Though she bet wrong in 2002-03, Clinton keeps doubling down in her apparent belief that her greater political vulnerability comes from being perceived as “weak” against U.S. adversaries. So, she’s emerged as one of the Obama administration’s leading hawks on Afghanistan and Iran.

I suspect she still has her eye on what she considers the crucial centers of financial, media and other power that could support a possible future run for president, whether in 2012 if the Obama administration unravels or in 2016.

Another explanation, I suppose, could be that the Secretary of State genuinely believes that the United States should fight wars favored by right-wing Israelis and their influential supporters in the U.S.

Whichever interpretation you prefer, there’s no doubt that she has put herself in the forefront of American leaders threatening Iran over its alleged “nuclear weapons” program, a “weapons” program that Iran denies exists and for which the U.S. intelligence community has found little or no evidence.

Bête Noire Iran

As a former CIA analyst myself, it strikes me as odd that Clinton’s speeches never reflect the consistent, unanimous judgment of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, issued formally (and with “high confidence”) in November 2007 that Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon in the fall of 2003 and had not yet decided whether or not to resume that work.

Less than two weeks ago (on Feb. 10), in a formal appearance before the House Intelligence Committee, National Intelligence Director James Clapper testified:

“We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons…."

“We continue to judge Iran’s nuclear decisionmaking is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran.”

Who’s in Charge Here?

Yet, in her determination to come across as hard-line, Clinton has undercut promising initiatives that might have constrained Iran from having enough low-enriched uranium to even be tempted to build a nuclear arsenal.


Last year, when – at the urging of President Obama – the leaders of Turkey and Brazil worked out an agreement with Iran, under which Iran agreed to ship about half of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) out of country, Clinton immediately rejected it in favor of more severe economic sanctions.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva were left wondering who exactly was in charge in Washington — Hillary and her pro-Israeli friends, or Obama.

Brazil released a three-page letter that Obama had sent to Lula da Silva a month earlier in which Obama said the proposed uranium transfer “would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s” stockpile of low-enriched uranium.

The contrast between Obama’s support for the initiative and the opposition from various hardliners (including Clinton) caused “some puzzlement,” one senior Brazilian official told the New York Times. After all, this official said, the supportive “letter came from the highest authority and was very clear.”

It was a particularly telling episode. Clinton basked in the applause of Israeli leaders and neocon pundits for blocking the uranium transfer and securing more restrictive U.N. sanctions on Iran – and since then Iran appears to have dug in its heals on additional negotiations over its nuclear program.

Secretary Clinton is almost as assiduous as Netanyahu in never missing a chance to paint the Iranians in the darkest colors – even if that ends up painting the entire region into a more dangerous corner.

More Hypocrisy

On Feb. 15, Clinton continued giving hypocrisy a bad name, with her GW speech regarding the importance of governments respecting peaceful dissent.

Five short paragraphs after she watched me snatched out of the audience Blackwater-style, she said, “Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people.” It was like something straight out of Franz Kafka.

Today, given the growing instability in the Middle East – and Netanyahu’s strident talk about Iran’s dangerous influence – it may take yet another Herculean effort by Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen to disabuse Netanyahu of the notion that Israel can somehow provoke the kind of confrontation with Iran that would suck Obama into the conflict on Israel’s side.

At each such turning point, Secretary Clinton predictably sides with the hard-line Israeli position and shows remarkably little sympathy for the Palestinians or any other group that finds itself in Israel’s way.

It is now clear, not only from the WikiLeaks documents, but even more so from the “Palestine Papers” disclosed by Al Jazeera, that Washington has long been playing a thoroughly dishonest “honest-broker” role between Israel and the Palestinians.

But those documents don’t stand alone. Clinton also rejected the Goldstone Report’s criticism of Israel’s bloody attack on Gaza in 2008-09; she waffled on Israel’s fatal commando raid on a Turkish relief flotilla on its way to Gaza in 2010; and she rallied to the defense of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak this month when Israeli leaders raised alarms about what might follow him.

Just last week, Clinton oversaw the casting of the U.S. veto to kill a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to stop colonizing territories it occupied in 1967. That vote was 14 to 1, marking the first such veto by the Obama administration. Netanyahu was quick to state that he “deeply appreciated” the U.S. stance.

Silent Witness

In the face of such callous disregard for what the Founders called “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,” words failed me — literally — on Feb. 15.

The op-eds, the speeches, the interviews that I and others have done about needless war and feckless politicians may have done some good but, surely, they have not done enough. And America’s Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) is the embodiment of a Fourth Estate that is dead in the water.

I counted about 20 TV cameras at the Clinton speech and reporters galore. Not one thought to come outside to watch what was happening to me, and zero reporting on the incident has found its way into the FCM, save a couple of brief and misleading accounts.

A Fox News story claimed that “a heckler interrupted” Clinton’s speech and then “was escorted from the room.” Fox News added that I "was, perhaps, trying to hold up a sign." CNN posted a brief clip with a similar insistence that I had “interrupted” Clinton’s speech, though the video shows me saying nothing until after I’m dragged away (or “escorted”) when I say, “So this is America.” There also was no sign.

Disappointing, but not surprising. I guess I really do believe that the good is worth doing because it is good. It shouldn’t matter that there is little or no guarantee of success — or even a truthful recounting of what happened.

One of my friends, in a good-natured attempt to make light of my arrest and brief imprisonment, commented that I must be used to it by now.

I thought of how anti-war prophet, Fr. Dan Berrigan, responded to that kind of observation in his testimony at the Plowshares Eight trial 31 years ago. I feel blessed by his witness and fully identify with what he said about “the push of conscience”:

“With every cowardly bone in my body, I wished I hadn’t had to do it. That has been true every time I have been arrested. My stomach turns over. I feel sick. I feel afraid. I hate jail. I don’t do well there physically.

“But I have read that we must not kill. I have read that children, above all, are threatened by this. I have read that Christ our Lord underwent death rather than inflict it. And I’m supposed to be a disciple."

“The push of conscience is a terrible thing.”

As Fr. Berrigan clearly understood, the suffering of the victims of war is so much worse than the shock and discomfort of arrest.

For her part, Sen. and/or Secretary Clinton seems never to have encountered a war that she didn’t immediately embrace on behalf of some geopolitical justification, apparently following Henry Kissinger’s dictum that soldiers are “just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

And beyond even the human suffering of those caught up in war, there’s what’s in store for the rest of us. As recent rhetoric and disclosures of leaked documents have made clear, what lies ahead is a permanent warfare state, including occupation of foreign lands and new military bases around the globe -- unless we have the courage to stand up this time.

Also to be expected will be the curtailment of our rights at home. “A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny,” wrote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn — one who knew.

Perhaps we need to bear in mind that we are part of a long line of those who have taken a stand on these issues.

As for those of us who have served abroad to protect the rights of U.S. citizens — well, maybe we have a particular mandate to do what we can to keep protecting them.

For us Veterans for Peace, we’ve been there, done that. And so, enough already!

Liquidating the Empire

By Patrick j. Buchanan

14/10/08 "Information Clearinghouse" --- “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers.”

So Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon advised Herbert Hoover in the Great Crash of ‘29.

Hoover did. And the nation liquidated him — and the Republicans.

In the Crash of 2008, 40 percent of stock value has vanished, almost $9 trillion. Some $5 trillion in real estate value has disappeared. A recession looms with sweeping layoffs, unemployment compensation surging, and social welfare benefits soaring.

America’s first trillion-dollar deficit is at hand.

In Fiscal Year 2008 the deficit was $438 billion.

With tax revenue sinking, we will add to this year’s deficit the $200 to $300 billion needed to wipe the rotten paper off the books of Fannie and Freddie, the $700 billion (plus the $100 billion in add-ons and pork) for the Wall Street bailout, the $85 billion to bail out AIG, and $37 billion more now needed, the $25 billion for GM, Chrysler and Ford, and the hundreds of billions Hank Paulson will need to buy corporate paper and bail out banks to stop the panic.

As Americans save nothing, where are the feds going to get the money? Is the Fed going to print it and destroy the dollar and credit rating of the United States? Because the nations whose vaults are full of dollars and U.S. debt — China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arabs — are reluctant to lend us more. Sovereign wealth funds that plunged billions into U.S. banks have already been burned.

Uncle Sam’s VISA card is about to be stamped “Canceled.”

The budget is going to have to go under the knife. But what gets cut?

Social Security and Medicare are surely exempt. Seniors have already taken a huge hit in their 401(k)s. And as the Democrats are crafting another $150 billion stimulus package for the working poor and middle class, Medicaid and food stamps are untouchable. Interest on the debt cannot be cut. It is going up. Will a Democratic Congress slash unemployment benefits, welfare, education, student loans, veterans benefits — in a recession?

No way. Yet, that is almost the entire U.S. budget — except for defense, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and foreign aid. And this is where the axe will eventually fall.

It is the American Empire that is going to be liquidated.

Retrenchment has begun with Bush’s backing away from confrontations with Axis-of-Evil charter members Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs, and will likely continue with a negotiated peace in Afghanistan. Gen. Petraeus and Secretary Gates are already talking “reconciliation” with the Taliban.

We no longer live in Eisenhower or Reagan’s America. Even the post-Cold War world of George H. W. Bush, where America was a global hegemon, is history. In both relative and real terms, the U.S.A. is a diminished power.

Where Ike spent 9 percent of GDP on defense, Reagan 6 percent, we spend 4 percent. Yet we have two wars bleeding us and many more nations to defend, with commitments in the Baltic, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans we did not have in the Cold War. As U.S. weapons systems are many times more expensive today, we have fewer strategic aircraft and Navy ships than Ike or Reagan commanded. Our active-duty Army and Marine Corps consist of 700,000 troops, 15 percent women, and a far higher percentage of them support rather than combat troops.

With so few legions, we cannot police the world, and we cannot afford more. Yet, we have a host of newly hostile nations we did not have in 1989.

U.S. interests in Latin America are being challenged not only by Cuba, but Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras. Brazil, Argentina and Chile go their own way. Russia is reasserting hegemony in the Caucasus, testing new ICBMs, running bomber probes up to U.S. air space. China, growing at 10 percent as we head into recession, is bristling over U.S. military sales to Taiwan. Iran remains defiant. Pakistan is rife with anti-Americanism and al-Qaida sentiment.

The American Empire has become a vast extravagance.

With U.S. markets crashing and wealth vanishing, what are we doing with 750 bases and troops in over 100 countries?

With a recession of unknown depth and duration looming, why keep borrowing billions from rich Arabs to defend rich Europeans, or billions from China and Japan to hand out in Millennium Challenge Grants to Tanzania and Burkina Faso?

America needs a bottom-up review of all strategic commitments dating to a Cold War now over for 20 years.

Is it essential to keep 30,000 troops in a South Korea with twice the population and 40 times the wealth of the North? Why are McCain and Obama offering NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees against Russia, to a Georgia run by a hothead like Mikheil Saakashvili, and a Ukraine, millions of whose people prefer their kinship to Russia to an alliance with us?

We must put “country first,” says John McCain.

Right you are, Senator. Time to look out for America first