As Americans, we are not one in any way, shape or form.

We are diverse, inclusive, at times exclusionary, conflicted, self-righteous and, more often than not these days, divisive. In our fast-evaporating sense of who we are, or once were, we have left our beacon of hope for the world at large adrift in a sea of uncertainty.

It was once easy to tout the United States as the symbol of desirable values, a sort of Rhodes port of entry for democracy. Oh, how we have stumbled as a nation, and precipitously, in recent years.

We continue to be warm, insensitive, confused, confusing, at times at one with ourselves, at times just a human bunch of some 331.9 (as of a 2021 count) million souls trying to make sense of what we have been given, the United States of America, and our place in the world beyond.

We are, and have always been, far from being one, and way far from being perfect. Yet our Constitution and our daily lives once allowed us to be just that, imperfect, with guaranteed freedoms … at least until the next crazed teenager or over-armed adult decided to pick us off with an automatic shotgun one by one in some unsuspecting mall, school or Home Depot.

As Americans, we are easy to hate, difficult to love, and as often as not misunderstood. Where some of us attempt to break down barriers, those of us across the street, or across our national divide, have been happy to build borders, walls and barriers. At times, it would seem that we are completely unknowable, political pundits aside.

There are still many of us alive today who remember the torn country that we were during the Vietnam War. We remember how it felt to be American then. It was confused and confusing all at once, day after day. The rest of the world did not like us at all, to put it kindly.

So, give a thought for Russians now.

Just for a minute, put yourself in the skin of a Russian today.

Russia is right now the Big Bad Wolf in headlines worldwide, and justifiably so. Russians, after all, elected Putin president once again by a vast majority as recently as 2018. Yet, remember that the Vietnam War, our Vietnam War, was prolonged under 5 Presidents until it eventually folded in April 1975.

This is hardly good news for the people of Ukraine. For a World Power to recognize its mistakes can take decades.

Are Russians as conflicted as we were during the Vietnam War? I imagine they are. Are their opinions of their country fraught? They must be. Can Russians protest within Russia? Not at all. Thousands upon thousands have been removed from the streets and silenced in a way that is unthinkable here in the United States.

I was, in more ways than one, reminded of our United States – yes, those same conflicted United States above – on a recent arrival in Madrid.

The EU is still a much newer concept in co-living than our American Union. Within the European Union, things are even now falling into place. The EU as we know it today had its beginnings with the Maastricht Treaty of 1993. The European Union is a work in progress. The United Kingdom was a reluctante partner for awhile, until they decided in 2019 to Brexit. However, their example is far from being the norm. Other countries are lining up to join the Union.

According to Wikipedia:

There are seven recognised candidates for membership of the European Union: Turkey (applied in 1987), North Macedonia (2004), Montenegro (2008), Albania (2009), Serbia (2009), Ukraine (2022), and Moldova (2022). Additionally, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Kosovo (whose independence is not recognised by five EU member states) are considered potential candidates for membership by the EU.^[1][2] Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia have formally submitted applications for membership, while Kosovo has a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU, which generally precedes the lodging of a membership application.

 Ukraine sees things differently than the UK. Ukraine doesn’t have the UK’s options of history and geography. Putin didn’t decide to invade the United Kingdom, after all.

Putin choose a defenseless neighbor, still not a member of a nascent European Union, to try to exert his late-blooming and misbegotten manhood by invading a benign neighbor to prove somehow his macho worldview. As is now evident to anybody paying attention worldwide, Putin misjudged, and exiled his eternal reputation to the gutter.

Back to landing in Madrid. At Barajas, there were Russians dragging and pushing way-overweight bags along their way, any which way, far from Russia. That was understandable. Until it wasn’t.

For Russians with money, Madrid is just one of many escapes from the horror of the motherland to a neighbor that still extends a welcoming embrace.

The sight of Russians at Atocha, Madrid’s train station, toting Louis Vuitton bags filled with recent purchases, was unsettling. Louis Vuitton in times of war? Drinking beer, happy with their day of shopping, joking around, the Russians at Atocha disquieted me.

The disquiet continued.

On the Metro in Rome, I sat next to a bunch of loud Russians wisecracking among themselves, laughing and seemingly happy on their way to view the ruins of the Coliseum. They were oblivious to any discomfort they might have been communicating to their fellow passengers concerned about their country’s invasion of a helpless neighbor, Ukraine.

These Russians didn’t seem to care about the nuances of co-existence. Nuances be damned was what I, unfortunately, understood.

These joyous Russians were, for me, somehow complicit in Putin’s imperious view of the world.

We can do what we want, they seemed to be saying as they joshed around, just as their elected leader, Putin did, toasting a glass of champagne high in celebration of his invasion of Ukraine not even a month later.

I was disturbed by the attitude of the Russians that I saw in Italy and Spain.

Could it be that Russians, at large, really support Putin? I found myself wondering.

Could it be that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine might represent the true mindset of the majority in Russia?

I know, I know, that Russians are as diverse as we are. See above.

I know that many have been swept off the streets, disappeared forever.

Yet, could it be that Putin really represents Russia? I found myself thinking in Rome.

Could it be that Russians in general could care less about Ukraine?

Just maybe, I found myself thinking.

Is Putin the true champion of a Russia anathema to our Western view of civilization? That’s what I really wondered.

Could that be true?

Just maybe, I found myself thinking again.

The post Is Putin Russia, and Russia Putin? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What’s better: a military-based economy or a peace-based economy?  Jason Sibert of the Peace Economy Project, says that cutting military spending and funding human needs would create a peace economy, which would work better and become more effective and prosperous.

Sibert, a Navy veteran and the recently hired executive director of the St. Louis Peace Economy Project, has an extensive background in journalism and reporting, from sports to news. Whether writing for the Java Journal or the Progressive Populist, he reported on topics and issues he is passionate about. He is the only paid employee of the Peace Economy Project.

Since its founding in 1977 by Sister Mary Ann McGivern, the Peace Economy Project has raised questions about how much money our country spends on the military and whether those funds could be better used to support middle- and lower-class people. Basically, what it comes down to is more spending on human needs and less on guns, nuclear weapons, and F-35s. A simple question this project asks is: What should we spend money on – guns or butter?

From the Cold War to the present, the Peace Economy Project has addressed many issues: It has criticized the military-industrial complex and advocated for for healthcare, education and infrastructure reform. Not affiliated with a political party, the organization will criticize any president of any party, says Sibert.

An unchecked military-industrial complex brings many hazards, says Sibert. Overspending on the military causes the rest of the economy to suffer. Other countries allocate more money to development, and that attracts high-tech companies. Overspending on the military has also resulted in cuts to education. In addition, noting that 40 percent of US workers earn less than $15 per hour, the Peace Economy Project has become involved in the Show-Me $15 initiative aimed at raising the minimum wage in St. Louis.

“We rot internally when we spend everything on the military,” says Sibert.

Legislative and policy changes are important in the quest for a peace economy, says Sibert. So, in addition to advocating for ideas, his organization is often out on the streets collecting signatures, and then visiting legislators to show them what their constituents want.

Critics of the Peace Economy Project contend that the military is the only decent thing about America. But Sibert argues that the United States can spend less money on military, while still having an effective and beneficial foreign policy. Sibert notes that Switzerland has a smaller military, which is cheaper, but is in need of natural resources, and that other countries depend on trade. Sibert’s idea of a better world economy would be to see more cooperation between power nations, such as Russia, China, the European Union, and the United States, as well as more cooperation in the United Nations.

“We all live in the same world,” says Sibert, “which explains why we need an economy that focuses on  human needs and peace for everyone.”

The Peace Economy Project collaborates with several other organizations, including the St. Louis Chapter of the United Nations Association, Veterans for Peace, and Jobs With Justice. Support for the Peace Economy Project comes from membership dues and individual donors.

Sibert hopes that more citizens will become aware of the need to change from a military-based economy to a more stable, peace-based economy. To do that, we need to become more educated, by reading and watching the news, paying attention to the world, and knowing the political pushes and pulls of it.

“The State Department and its diplomats are as important as the generals,” he says. “Problems need to be solved diplomatically instead of lethally.”

The post Guns or butter? Butter, says Peace Economy Project appeared first on Occasional Planet.

(reprinted from Midwest Socialist)

Francis Horton is that rarest of U.S. soldiers: a leftist and self-identifying socialist. Born in Missouri in 1983, he joined the U.S. Army in July of 2000 and served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and various NATO countries. Currently he serves as a Public Affairs Non-Comissioned Officer and lives in St. Louis. He is also the creator of What a Hell of a Way to Die, a podcast examining military politics from a left perspective. After gaining some popularity on Twitter (@armystrang) and an appearance on Chapo Trap House, Horton launched the podcast over a year ago and was soon joined by fellow soldier Nate Bethea. It’s a witty, fun, and informative look at the absurdities of military life and American empire.

Are you a DSA member or member of any other socialist or left group? To what extent is political involvement curtailed for on- and off-duty soldiers, particularly PA officers?

I am not a member of the DSA because I am aware that there are some in the DSA and other leftist organizations who wouldn’t feel comfortable with a currently serving member of the military in the ranks. Though I am familiar with my local DSA chapter and have done a meet and greet with them at a local gun range.

I’ve never noticed political involvement being curtailed. The UCMJ (Uniform code of military justice, basically our laws in the military) say troops are encouraged to be active in politics, but we can’t wear our uniforms or belong to hate groups. My commander isn’t really concerned with anything we do as long as it isn’t illegal, nor are most leaders. The important thing is keeping it to yourself and not bringing it into work, just like any other job. My job in public affairs isn’t anymore a help or hindrance really. Though I do hear stories from time to time about leaders who try to push their politics onto their soldiers. As always, it depends on the person above you. Personally I’ve been to rallies and protests and no one seems to care as long as you aren’t breaking anything.

What were your politics like before joining the army? What was your reason for joining?

I can’t say I really had politics before joining as I was 17. I voted for Bush in an absentee ballot in Afghanistan in 2004 with the resounding logic of “Well he started it so I guess he should finish it out,” which we see how well that went today. I was 20 and didn’t know any better, which should be a little frightening when it comes to who is doing the voting in this country. I’m from Missouri though, so my presidential choices don’t mean squat. As for why I joined, I guess I saw my incredible privilege as something I owed back to the country and not exactly what it was, the privilege of being born a straight white dude into a middle class Midwest family. Though I got lucky as my father is a socialist as well, but never really talked politics at the dinner table. I didn’t have to deal with super racist family members as even they knew better than that.

These days, I know I joined because I was bored and had no idea what I was planning to do with my life at 17. I knew I didn’t want to go to college, and figured I’d join the reserves. Not like we were at war or anything. 

What caused you to move left or explicitly identify as leftist or socialist?

I suppose I moved left after the 2016 election, though it was a direction I was always headed. I saw that democrat leaders were staying beholden to whatever was going to keep making them money, and I was tired of being scolded by Hillary supporters for daring to question voting for more of the same. I saw that better things were possible and I was mad people wanted to keep it the same for their own selfish reasons. That’s not how you have a healthy country and it’s not how you stay strong together.

What caused you to start What a Hell of a Way to Die?

I felt there had to be more veterans and soldiers like me. And not even necessarily socialist, but certainly not right leaning. Nate and I get messages all the time thanking us for being a voice for the more left veteran community, and I think that’s why we like to keep doing it. As someone still serving on a contract, the world has somehow become even more uncertain and awful for troops, and it’s good to know there are others you can reach out to and have that connection you might not be able to find in your own unit.

I also wanted to be a bridge between the military and the civilian world as there’s a huge gap between the two. Many civilians don’t know a troop, and I want to be more accessible to them.

Besides your podcast, are there outlets for discussion and promotion of socialist thought in the veteran community? You’ve written for Task and Purpose, is that a potential opportunity for left-wing veterans?

My writing isn’t particularly socialist for T&P, and I’ve bee approached a few times for pitches as a socialist veteran, but veterans don’t read Jacobin. The easiest way to spread a message of socialism is to show troops they’re already living it. Guaranteed housing or housing stipend, education benefits for you and your family, guaranteed healthcare, tax-free shopping, maternity leave, 30 days paid vacation from day one. We have it really good on active duty. Once you get out into the civilian world, you find it a lot harder. I’ve met more than one veteran try to scramble back into the military or go back to active duty following separation because, as hard as we think we have it in the Army, it’s really hard out here for civilians.

Service members are stereotypically reactionary; How frequently does one encounter left-leaning soldiers and vets?

I don’t meet left leaning veterans because I don’t talk about my politics in ranks to anyone other than people I already know lean Democrat. And even then it’s sparse. It’s not that I don’t trust people to not do some kind of witch hunt, but I just don’t want to deal with a lecture, nor do I want anyone to think I’m lecturing them.

Thomas Frank wrote in What’s the Matter With Kansas about how many Vietnam vets leaned left rather than right. What do you think has changed since then?

When Vietnam vets came home, they weren’t greeted with the heroes welcome veterans today enjoy. Vietnam was a war that took kids from their families and flung them overseas to a war most people couldn’t understand why we were fighting for so long. The image of the soldier coming home was a perfect target for a nation mad at their government. Like screaming at the customer-service representative when the electric company raises your rates, it was an outlet for rage, and the victims of that rage stood against the war themselves many times. Not only was it shit overseas, but it was now shit at home.

Today veterans are put up on a pedestal for joining and going overseas. It’s actually a very impressive massaging of propaganda aimed at the civilian masses to support the troops, even if you’re against the war. But at this point, no one who is a troop has an excuse. The war has been going for 16 years and it’s ramping back up. But this time the deployments are small enough that the volunteer military can fill in (even though the cracks in our ranks are showing and we’re absolutely not ready for any of the conventional wars we’re beating the drum for). Couple that with extremely low fatality rates in a nation that doesn’t even slow down when 500 people are wounded at a madman opening fire on a concert in Las Vegas and you have a country that is placated.

Maybe it’s also that some of us are spoiled. They were told they were owed and they still have their hands out asking for things. Asking for your respect. Asking you to shut up because the troop is talking and you’re just a weak civilian who never joined because you’re a pussy. Really there’s lots of small things that I think make this big right-wing stew. Isolation and insulation away from the civilian world and thinking that because we dragged a rifle across a foreign country we suddenly have some trump card in any argument.

That was super rambling, but I think it will make a good podcast episode after I sort my brain out a bit more.

St. Louis has been at the center of movements for racial equality in the last decade or so. How have soldiers reacted to the protests surrounding Ferguson (2014) and the Stockley verdict (2017)? Do servicemen find anything objectionable about the militarization of local police departments? How about you personally?

Lots of troops are against the militarization of the police because the cops are getting weapons that they don’t have the same training regimen as we do. Combat troops are always (in theory at least) training on their various weapons systems. When you aren’t actually doing war, you’re practicing. Police don’t have that same luxury and end up driving black MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) out to a peaceful protest in case it gets violent. Those things are meant to keep you safe from anti-tank mines, you don’t need it if someone chucks a bottle at you.

I’ve watched our police department make mistake after mistake with the people of this city and the people who protest, but that’s more of incompetent leadership than anything else. Some of the soldiers I’m around are of the mindset that “protest is fine, just don’t bother me with it,” which is a hard hill to climb and I generally don’t get into it during my weekend duties.

On What a Hell of a Way to Die, you speak facetiously about being an “imperial stooge” and the like. How do you reconcile left-wing, anti-imperial politics with working for what the left considers to be an imperial entity? How do you respond to leftists who feel service members should not be a part of revolutionary politics?

Every troop has to make peace with who and what they are. I can’t get out of the Army without financially screwing myself for the rest of my life, but I’ve found a little corner I can coast out to the end of my contract without contributing too much to the global imperial war machine. For myself and my past in the military, I can only admit that I wasn’t paying attention when I was in, and promising myself to do better with open ears and an open heart in the future.

As for the ones who say I have no part in revolutionary politics, it’s nothing new. As I said, I’m not a member of the DSA or PSL because there are those who wouldn’t feel comfortable with me. But to me, the point of socialism in being inclusive, not exclusive. Will you turn away the person who was a bootstrap conservative if they have a change of heart just to be petty? If so, your socialism needs to be checked, because it’s not one I want to participate in anyway.

Personally, I have little local things I’m a part of to help and give back to the community. For me, the real socialism is finding the people near you and doing what you can to help them if they need it. National politics is fine, but it’s not helping the person down the street with an empty cupboard.

What is the most important thing civilian leftists should know about the military and service members?

We exist, and there’s more than I thought there were. And to not hold service in the military against people. I reenlisted twice because they offered me money, school, and healthcare. If you can’t understand why in this time that might be attractive, then you aren’t paying attention. And don’t discount Democrat troops either. Maybe they aren’t into socialism, but they can still be allies and they can still fight for the things they enjoy in the military, such as housing and healthcare. Some democrats are going to need coaxing over to the left, but it’s important to not shout them down because their politics don’t fully align with yours. Though mostly I only see that online. In person, people are generally more polite.

A century ago, the Midwest was the breeding ground for left movements like the Populists and the Socialist Party. Do you see any hope for a leftward shift in the region? In particular, among the region’s service members and veterans?

I bring up Southern Missouri as a perfect place to kickstart a new socialist movement. I often hear the same with Appalachia because it shares the same economic demographics. The problem with rural areas in the country, and I don’t just mean flyover states, I mean outside the big cities, is that they are largely ignored politically. Democrats see them as lost causes and Republicans do drive-by handshakes on their way to expensive fundraising dinners. But no one actually addresses the issues happening in those areas, like massive opiate problems and crippling poverty. In some ways, Being born in a trailer park can be just as hard to claw your way out of as an inner city. You don’t leave your financial class.

I think soldiers have a unique position as potential ambassadors to these areas. Your average infantry platoon of 40-ish troops will vary wildly from rural Texas, San Francisco, the bayou of Louisiana, at least a couple guys born in foreign countries, and an NYC guy. They all have to work and live together and find a way to talk and get along. I wasn’t born in Southern Missouri, but I know most of the roads, I can put on the accent, and I’m handy with a 12 gauge on a turkey hunt. I also want to make sure you can get that thing checked out at the doctor that’s suddenly started aching but your hours got cut and you can’t afford a 5k deductible.

Francis Horton can be found on Twitter (@armystrang). What a Hell of a Way to Die is available on a variety of podcasting platforms such as SoundCloud and Apple Podcasts. It is free, but Horton offers bonus content to supporters of his Patreon.

The post What a Hell of a Way to Organize: An Interview With Francis Horton appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“Eye in the Sky,” is not your typical war movie. Director Gavin Hood has created a military thriller without firefights, bombs, ear-shattering explosions or mud-and-blood spattered soldiers. Unlike most war movies, this one is not about boots-on-the-ground battles. The battle in “Eye in the Sky” is waged behind-the-scenes, at military bases thousands of miles away, in electronic control rooms, and  in high-level government offices. That’s where strategists, soldiers, lawyers and politicians engage in high-stakes decision-making that must balance military goals with morality and political considerations–all in the context of 21st Century, remote-control drone warfare.

The plot revolves around a British-led, targeted drone strike against a group of El Shabbab terrorists in Nairobi, Kenya. Military higher-ups have authorized the strike on a house in Kenya, where three of the most-wanted terrorists have been spotted and confirmed by drone cameras [including a nifty little, beetle-sized flying drone and sophisticated face-recognition software.]  But as the drone operator puts his finger on the trigger, a 9-year-old girl enters the kill zone and sets up shop selling bread. Her presence sets off  the moral/political/military dilemma that drives the movie.

Other movie makers might have added a dramatic, pulsating musical score to tell you that you’re supposed to be on the edge of your seat. Others might have tossed in extraneous characters, red herrings, comic relief, expensive special effects, or sentimental backstories for the main characters. Hood does none of this. The story itself is enough, and he tells it–to excellent effect–step by step and without embellishment. [No spoilers.] Insightful writing, restrained directing and excellent casting [Hellen Mirren and the late, lamented Alan Rickman, to name the top two] make “Eye in the Sky” a worthy, thought-provoking movie experience.

I have no idea if this film is based on a real incident. But if it’s not, it should be. I want to believe that the kind of forethought and ethical wrestling depicted in “Eye in the Sky” plays out in drone warfare. But I’m not that naive.

Sure, it would be reassuring to know that people up and down the decision-making hierarchy take morality into consideration as part of their duties. It was refreshing, for example, to watch the drone operators refuse to take action until they were reassured that what they were about to do was morally and legally justified. But we also see that each of the players– including the British Foreign Secretary, the British Attorney General, the US Secretary of State, the British Prime Minister, and the head of the prevailing party in Parliament–has a specific mission to fulfill. Each sees the situation through his or her own prism. And through them, we realize how complicated these kinds of decisions can be. And, by the way, no one wants to make the ultimate call.

“Eye in the Sky” raises many thorny questions: Which would be worse, saving one child by calling off a drone strike on terrorists who are arming up in suicide vests, or authorizing the strike, knowing that there’s a high probability of the child dying as “collateral damage?”  Should a drone operator have to follow orders that he thinks are immoral? Can the military legally kill a citizen of its own country who has joined up with terrorists in another nation? Does remote-control warfare make it too easy for generals and pilots to walk away from the destruction they inflict? Are these new issues, or the same ones faced over centuries of conventional war? None of these questions is easily answered, and to its credit, “Eye in the Sky” doesn’t try to.

But, as a viewer, you may.  Some movies leave you humming the theme song or repeating a recurring laugh line. Others leave you sniffling and wiping away tears. “Eye in the Sky” had a completely different effect on me: I left asking myself, “What would I do?”

The post Eye In the Sky: The moral choices of drone warfare appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The most popular post, over the years, on Occasional Planet is: “Military Mystery: how many bases does the US have, anyway?”  American University anthropology professor, David Vine, spent six years trying to answer that question and to investigate the effect of U.S. military presence on foreign soil. In researching his subject, he traveled to U.S. military installations around the world, interviewing both the military and local residents. His findings are published in his new book, Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World. (Henry Holt, 2015).

Some of David Vine’s main points:

The military admits we have an excess base capacity worldwide. It doesn’t have a clear idea, and/or doesn’t want to confirm how many bases we have. The official count is 686 but it excludes known bases in Kosovo, Kuwait, and Qatar, “secret” bases in Israel and Saudi Arabia, and who knows how many in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vine settles on 800 as a good estimate.

The sites vary from massive bases in Germany and Japan to smaller facilities in Peru and Puerto Rico, to off-the-record “black sites” run by the CIA and military intelligence. By comparison, Russia has bases in 10 countries, mostly in former Soviet states. India and China have none.

Maintaining installations and troops overseas cost at least $85 billion in 2014. Our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq brings the total to $156 billion—money, Vine says, that could be better spent on education, infrastructure, housing and health care.

Our presence in other countries provokes hatred toward Americans. Our bases and troops in the Middle East have been major catalysts for anti-Americanism and radicalization.

Foreign bases heighten military tensions and discourage diplomatic solutions, while, at the same time, encourage excess military spending.

Imprisonment, torture, and abuse at bases from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib have generated worldwide disgust and damaged our reputation. Drone bases enable missile strikes that have killed hundreds of civilians, producing further outrage.

The official line is that these military bases are defensive and make us, and the host countries, safer. Yet they have functioned more as launching pads for interventionist wars that have resulted in repeated disasters costing trillions of dollars and millions of lives from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan.

David Vine: On the presence of U.S. foreign military bases as a catalyst for war:

Placing U.S. bases near the borders of countries such as China, Russia, and Iran, for example, increases threats to their security and encourages them to respond by boosting their own military spending. Again, imagine how U.S. leaders would respond if Iran were to build even a single small base in Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean.

Notably, the most dangerous moment during the Cold War—the Cuban missile crisis—revolved around the creation of Soviet nuclear missile facilities roughly ninety miles from the U.S. border. Similarly, one of the most dangerous episodes in the post-Cold War era—Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its involvement in the war in Ukraine—has come after the United States encouraged the enlargement of NATO and built a growing number of bases closer and closer to Russian borders.

Indeed, a major motivation behind Russia’s actions has likely been its interest in maintaining perhaps the most important of its small collection of foreign bases, the naval base in the Crimean port Sevastopol. West-leaning Ukrainian leaders’ desire to join NATO posed a direct threat to the base, and thus to the power of the Russian navy.

Perhaps most troubling of all, the creation of new U.S. bases to protect against an alleged future Chinese or Russian threat runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. By provoking a Chinese and Russian military response, these bases may help create the very threat against which they are supposedly designed to protect. In other words, far from making the world a safer place, U.S. bases overseas can actually make war more likely and America less secure.

Questioning American military empire

At no time in history has a nation had such a vast international military presence as the United States does today. Our foreign bases serve US “interests” meaning the geopolitical/economic/financial interests of banks and corporations. The military and its war industries account for a large share of the budget while most Americans are experiencing declining incomes and quality of life.

The hubristic attitude, shared by Republicans, Democrats, and progressives alike, is that the United States is “exceptional,” and therefore has some sort of self-appointed moral right to militarily and economically dominate the world. We decide when a national leader “has to go” and initiate a covert or overt “regime change.” We assassinate identified “enemies” with drones along with innocent bystanders referred to not as “human beings” but as “collateral damage.” We ignore international law and the United Nations if they get in the way of our pursuing our “interests” in a country or region. We prefer destroyed, failed states that we can control to independent, functioning states that refuse to be US vassals (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, Syria). Sadly, the American people are generally comfortable with all this, or indifferent.

Absent in the media, among elected officials, or in the general public, is a debate about whether we should continue this hubristic and destructive hegemonic agenda. The only voices raised against a US-dominated, unipolar world come from the Left, and a few on the Libertarian Right. Those voices are routinely slapped down and ridiculed as being overly critical, negative, ideological, unrealistic, disloyal, utopian, hyperbolic, naïve, conspiratorial, weak, unpatriotic, and, when critical of the role of Israel in the middle east, anti-Semitic. Rarely do Americans engage with the challenging issues raised by the Left.

The US public, perhaps the most uninformed in the developed world, may never question, or worse yet, even be aware of, the vast number of US military bases and operations around the globe. Our jingoistic media supports our corporate-backed military agenda by demonizing any country that refuses to align itself with our interests. Fear-based war mongering is routinely served up as “news” on CNN, FOX, and in the pages of the New York Times. Mainstream media-driven, official narratives abound, dissenting voices occasionally, but rarely appear, while everywhere serious analysis or dialog is discouraged.

The US debt is now at 101% of GDP, much of that from unpaid for wars and an unsustainable and bloated military/intelligence budget. By comparison, China’s debt is 64.37% of GDP, and Russia’s is 11.66% of GDP. (http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org) The powerful British Empire, once controlled 25% of the world. Eventually, it fell under the weight of its overextended global presence. Given the stagnation of our economy and the deterioration of our infrastructure, we are clearly headed down that road.

In 2004, the late Chalmers Johnson, “cold-warrior,” Korean War veteran, CIA consultant, and university professor, wrote the following prescient analysis:

Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld, one can’t begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations, or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order. Militarism and imperialism are Siamese twins joined at the hip; each thrives off the other. Already highly advanced in our country, they are both on the verge of a quantum leap that will almost surely stretch our military beyond its capabilities, bringing about fiscal insolvency and very possibly doing mortal damage to our republican institutions.

The post The case for closing our overseas military bases appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I’m one of those “cord-cutters.” I’ve also given up all mainstream media news. Even though I can still watch and read it online, I mostly choose not to. The lies and distortions are reaching full on lunacy, and if I do catch a headline, or watch a clip, or read a few paragraphs of what the “voices of empire” have to say about Syria or Ukraine, it just ruins my day. I get depressed knowing that most Americans believe the false narratives spun by the White House and State Department, narratives that go unquestioned by the “journalists” who report them. These stories are designed to get the country on board with the administration’s expensive, illegitimate wars that drain resources away from the many to enrich the few.. Unfortunately, most Americans feel that If CNN or the New York Times says it’s true, it must be true.

In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. government uses the media to demonize the legitimate heads of state in countries it wants to overthrow—most recently Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, and Vladimir Putin. When the demonization starts, you know that country is in the crosshairs of the United States. We pursue “regime change” if a country refuses to bow to U.S. hegemony, is making economic alliances with other countries that threaten U.S. economic interests, or if it has resources we want, such as oil. We also destroy countries that bypass the dollar on trade settlement, as Libya was intending to do. Gaddafi was in the process of starting a gold backed pan-African bank that would serve, rather than exploit, the countries on the African continent. That was unacceptable to Wall Street and international banking cartels. Gaddafi was assassinated, and Libya, once the most prosperous country on the continent, is now a completely destroyed, failed state.

How do we invade without deploying troops? We have NATO do our dirty work, we impose economic and financial sanctions, we impose “no fly zones,” we use mercenaries, we use NGOs to stir up internal unrest and opposition, we send in  CIA-backed fighters like al-Nusra in Syria, we recruit and train jihadists to destabilize our target countries in the Middle East, and we get in bed with corrupt oligarchs and neo-Nazi’s in countries like Ukraine. We steal resources, destroy economic competition, and preserve, or restore, the primacy of the dollar as reserve currency. Most Americans have a misguided view of the United States as some sort of benign force keeping the peace and taking out “bad guys.”  Actually, we are the bad guys. 

Have a look at this moronic Newsweek cover. This is what propaganda looks like. There are deranged Neocons infesting the Obama administration, like Victoria Nuland at State, and Ashton Carter at the Pentagon. And in the DC media, you have people like Richard Cohen at the Washington Post.  They drool over the idea of assassinating Putin, installing another U.S. puppet, like the late, drunk, Boris Yeltsin, and making Russia, with its vast landmass and resources, into a vassal state. This image of Putin as a crazed power hungry “pariah” is the false narrative they want you to buy. Neocons are elitists who don’t believe in democracy. They have no problem manipulating and lying to the American people, as they did going into the Iraq War. They feel the destiny of the United States is nothing less than full-spectrum world dominance.

Humor to the rescue, or, “if I wasn’t laughing I’d be crying”

I love humor, especially when it’s used to expose a devastating truth about current events. So, in the spirit of John Stewart, John Oliver and the venerable Onion, I bring you Gary Leupp, professor of History at Tufts University. By mocking current news coverage on Syria, Leupp points to what’s not true in what we’re hearing and reading. Here’s an edited excerpt of his post “A Useful Prep-sheet on Syria for Media Propagandists”, (emphasis mine). You can read the rest of his wickedly insightful commentary at Counterpunch.

State Department talking points on Syria for cable news anchors:

• Keep mentioning the barrel bombs. Do not mention how the Israeli Air Force pioneered their use in 1948, and how they were used by the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam in Operation Inferno in 1968. Keep repeating, “barrel bombs, barrel bombs” and stating with a straight face that the Syrian regime is using them “against its own people.” Against its own people. Against its own people. Against its own people.
• Keep mentioning “200,000.” (The UN estimates that 220,000 have been killed in the conflict since 2011.) Declare, like you really believe it, that this is the number of civilians the Syrian government of Bashar Assad has killed during the war. (Do not be concerned about any need to back the figure up. No one is ever going to call you on it publicly.) Do NOT mention that around half of the war dead (estimates range from 84,000 to 133,000) are Syrian government forces waging war against an overwhelmingly Islamist opposition, and an additional 73,000 to 114,000 are anti-government combatants. Do not discuss these figures because they would call into question the claim that the Syrian government is targeting and killing tens of thousands of civilians willy-nilly.
• Keep expressing consternation if not outrage that Russia is “interfering” in Syria. Scrunch up your face and act like you think it’s puzzling. Do NOT mention that Syria is much closer to Russia than to the U.S. and that Russia faces a much greater threat of Islamist terror than the U.S. (in places like Chechnya and Dagestan that your viewers can’t locate on a map). Downplay the fact that Russia has had a military relationship with Syria since the 1950s, no more nor less legitimate that the U.S. military relationship with Saudi Arabia. (And avoid any objective comparisons of the human rights records of Saudi Arabia and Syria since the former’s is manifestly so much worse than the latter’s!) Do NOT imply any moral equivalence between Russia’s desire to prevent U.S.-backed regime change in Syria and the U.S.’s desire to inflict another Iraq or Libya-type regime change on that tragically war-torn country.
• Keep treating the Assad regime as an obvious pariah, whose leader has “lost legitimacy.” Say that with an air of authority, like you really believe that U.S. presidents—like Chinese emperors of the past or medieval popes— enjoy so much “legitimacy” that they can confer this on, or remove it from, anybody else. Study CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s facial expressions and body language when he announces—so matter-of-factly, as a self-evident fact, as a done deal—that (come on, everybody!) “Assad has lost legitimacy.” (Chris is your model. He’s the State Department’s pleasantly vapid headed scion-of-privilege poster boy, whose occasional dark flashes of indignation—especially those directed towards anyone questioning the official talking points on Russia—embody the attitude Foggy Bottom seeks to encourage in the corporate press.) Do NOT remind viewers that the Syrian government is internationally recognized, holds a UN seat, retains cordial relations with most nations and is engaged in a life-and-death struggle against people who enslave, crucify, behead, bury alive and burn alive people, and want to replace Syria’s modern secular government with a medieval religious one intolerant of any diversity.
• Keep treating Russian President Vladimir Putin as America’s Enemy Number One, an ally of a Syrian government that U.S. has said must go, deploying force in Syria to bolster Assad rather than (as Moscow claims) to target ISIL. Do NOT lend any credence to the Russian assertion that the Syrian Army is the force best placed to defeat ISIL. Do NOT point out the incongruity of the U.S. invading and attacking countries from Pakistan to Libya since 2001 while expressing alarm that Moscow is (after much hesitation) taking action against Islamist terrorists at Damascus’s invitation.
• Please keep everything simple, following the examples set by MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Scarborough and CNN’s Cuomo, and inculcate in the mind of the viewer that Assad is the main problem and most horrible actor in the Syrian situation. Tell them that Putin, while striving to revive the tsarist empire, is backing Assad as a loyal ally and using his military to prolong his rule that Washington condemns rather than (as he states) taking action against ISIL.
• If you do all this, you will demonstrate your loyalty to the State Department, the bipartisan foreign policy consensus, the military-industrial complex, the One Percent, your advertisers, your producers and editors, and the unsung heroes behind the scenes who arrange your teleprompter scripts.

The post Talking points on Syria for news propagandists appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Below is a letter in the May 30th, 2015 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, from a retired US Air Force officer. He says what many of us have been saying since the Bush administration lied us into the 2003 war in Iraq, but this man has the credentials the rest of us do not have.

Millions of Americans and others around the world protested the march to war in late 2002 and early 2003. But Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons had their eyes on Iraq come hell or high water. WE need to repeat what this retired officer says in his letter over and over during the coming debate about what to do or not do in the Middle East.

The hawks are circling again. This time we have to shout them down.

Here is the letter:

It now should be pretty clear that the Iraq government and its soldiers are incapable of defending their country. For those anxious to put thousands of American soldiers on the ground again in Iraq, I would remind them that the reason we don’t have more troops there now is that former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki insisted that a new status of forces agreement would include the authorization for Iraqi courts to try American soldiers for alleged offenses against Iraqi civilians. That has always been, and hopefully always will be, a nonstarter for conflicts involving American forces in a foreign country.

So now what? If we send troops back in, who will we use? How about the ones who have already been over there several times? And what happens when all of those are dead, maimed or insane? Or do we mobilize the U.S., build up a million-man force, and declare Iraq the 51st state? Maybe it’s time to look back at lessons from other wars. Just as in Vietnam, we got involved in Iraq without knowing who we were fighting, what the goals were, and what the exit strategy was.

And Iraq had the additional complication that we stepped right in the middle of a 1,000-year-old religious conflict between two Muslim sects that we didn’t even recognize at the time. And all we could do to solve that was build walls between communities to try to separate them.

So what’s been the net effect of our incursion into Iraq? ISIS has formed and is probably worse than Saddam Hussein. While we trained an Iraq army to fight, it’s probably not possible to train them to want to fight. The government continues to separate Shiite and Sunni Muslims. So, things are pretty much back to square one.

Maybe with the assistance of air power from the U.S., the Iraqi government can salvage part of what used to be Iraq, or maybe not. In any event, whether it’s in our best interest to waste any more money or lives in pursuit of ambiguous goals set by old men who simply want younger men to fight their battles is pretty debatable.

-Miles Barnett • High Ridge Lieutenant colonel, U.S. Air Force (retired)

The post More boots on the ground for Iraq? Retired Air Force officer says, “No.” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I am frightened, saddened and angered by the war propaganda published in the US media, particularly the New York Times, the so-called “paper of record,” concerning the war in Ukraine. Day after day, the White House, the State Department, and the CIA issue false narratives about Putin, Russia and Ukraine, and the Times and other corporate news outlets deliver these lies, unchallenged, to the American people. The Obama administration generates false narratives because the real story is too bloody and unpalatable for a public who lives under the illusion that the United States is a force for good in the world.

Independent investigative reporter, Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for the AP and Newsweek, weighs in on Washington’s conspiracy theory that Putin instigated the crisis in Ukraine. He provides a complete chronology of events in Ukraine over the past year, which leads to his conclusion that the Obama administration and his neocon appointees at the State Department not only backed the coup in Kiev, Ukraine, but also continue to escalate the conflict. Parry turns to an unlikely source, arch warmonger Henry Kissinger, to make his case.

[T]he key point is that Putin was reacting to the Ukraine crisis, not instigating it. As even former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger explained to Der Spiegel, “The annexation of Crimea was not a move toward global conquest. It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia.”

Kissinger added, “Putin spent tens of billions of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The theme of the Olympics was that Russia is a progressive state tied to the West through its culture and, therefore, it presumably wants to be part of it. So it doesn’t make any sense that a week after the close of the Olympics, Putin would take Crimea and start a war over Ukraine.”

In this case, Kissinger is clearly right. It never made any sense for Putin to provoke the Ukraine crisis. Yet, that became the lie upon which the United States has built its increasingly aggressive policies over the past year, with politicians of all stripes now shouting that America must stand up to the madman Putin and “Russian aggression.”

 Why is the Obama administration escalating the conflict in Ukraine?

With great clarity, independent foreign policy writer Mike Whitney lays bare the reasons for the Obama administration’s policy of aggression toward Putin, Russia and Ukraine. He tells the story of a failing empire wanting to cling to its role as the world’s only superpower. Obama’s “pivot to Asia” is an attempt to rein in China and Russia who want out from under the unipolar world of U.S. economic and military hegemony. (My emphasis in boldface.)

Washington needs a war in Ukraine to achieve its strategic objectives. This point cannot be overstated.

The US wants to push NATO to Russia’s western border. It wants a land bridge to Asia to spread US military bases across the continent. It wants to control the pipeline corridors from Russia to Europe to monitor Moscow’s revenues and to ensure that gas continues to be denominated in dollars. And it wants a weaker, unstable Russia that is more prone to regime change, fragmentation and, ultimately, foreign control. These objectives cannot be achieved peacefully, indeed, if the fighting stopped tomorrow, the sanctions would be lifted shortly after, and the Russian economy would begin to recover. How would that benefit Washington?

It wouldn’t. It would undermine Washington’s broader plan to integrate China and Russia into the prevailing economic system, the dollar system. Powerbrokers in the US realize that the present system must either expand or collapse. Either China and Russia are brought to heel and persuaded to accept a subordinate role in the US-led global order, or Washington’s tenure as global hegemon will come to an end.

This is why hostilities in East Ukraine have escalated and will continue to escalate. This is why the U.S. Congress approved a bill for tougher sanctions on Russia’s energy sector and lethal aid for Ukraine’s military. This is why Washington has sent military trainers to Ukraine and is preparing to provide $3 billion in  “anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees, and radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.” All of Washington’s actions are designed with one purpose in mind, to intensify the fighting and escalate the conflict. The heavy losses sustained by Ukraine’s inexperienced army and the terrible suffering of the civilians in Lugansk and Donetsk are of no interest to US war-planners. Their job is to make sure that peace is avoided at all cost because peace would derail US plans to pivot to Asia and remain the world’s only superpower. . . .

Non-lethal military aid will inevitably lead to lethal military aid, sophisticated weaponry, no-fly zones, covert assistance, foreign contractors, Special ops, and boots on the ground. We’ve seen it all before. There is no popular opposition to the war in the US, no thriving antiwar movement that can shut down cities, order a general strike or disrupt the status quo. So there’s no way to stop the persistent drive to war. The media and the political class have given Obama, carte blanche, the authority to prosecute the conflict as he sees fit. That increases the probability of a broader war by this summer following the spring thaw.

While the possibility of a nuclear conflagration cannot be excluded, it won’t affect US plans for the near future. No one thinks that Putin will launch a nuclear war to protect the Donbass, so the deterrent value of the weapons is lost.

And Washington isn’t worried about the costs either. Despite botched military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and half a dozen other countries around the world; US stocks are still soaring, foreign investment in US Treasuries is at record levels, the US economy is growing at a faster pace than any of its global competitors, and the dollar has risen an eye-watering 13 percent against a basket of foreign currencies since last June. America has paid nothing for decimating vast swathes of the planet and killing more than a million people. Why would they stop now?

They won’t, which is why the fighting in Ukraine is going to escalate. . . .

There will be a war with Russia because that’s what the political establishment wants. It’s that simple. And while previous provocations failed to lure Putin into the Ukrainian cauldron, this new surge of violence–a spring offensive–is bound to do the trick. Putin is not going to sit on his hands while proxies armed with US weapons and US logistical support pound the Donbass to Fallujah-type rubble. He’ll do what any responsible leader would do. He’ll protect his people. That means war.

Financial warfare, asymmetrical warfare, Forth Generation warfare, space warfare, information warfare, nuclear warfare, laser, chemical, and biological warfare—the US has expanded its arsenal well beyond the traditional range of conventional weaponry. The goal, of course, is to preserve the post-1991 world order (The dissolution up of the Soviet Union) and maintain full spectrum dominance. The emergence of a multi-polar world order spearheaded by Moscow poses the greatest single threat to Washington’s plans for continued domination.  The first significant clash between these two competing worldviews will likely take place sometime this summer in East Ukraine. God help us.

The post Washington’s Putin-did-it conspiracy theory and its escalation of the crisis in Ukraine appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In case you haven’t noticed, U.S. mainstream media has been spewing out anti-Russian, anti-Putin propaganda since the U.S. backed coup in Kiev last year. If you believe the lies on TV and in the New York Times, an emboldened Putin is planning to take over the world, one country at a time. First, they report breathlessly, he is determined to take over Ukraine, then he’s after the former Soviet nations, and then, who knows? Scary isn’t it? Obviously, Russia wants to take over the world. Oh, wait a minute. . . that’s what the United States is trying to do.

If the rebels in the Eastern Provinces really are Russian soldiers, (rather than Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens who refuse to accept the corrupt, U.S. stooge government in Kiev) you would think the Ukrainians in the West would eagerly join the army to fight Putin’s soldiers invading from the East. But they know better. They are refusing to be drafted to fight and kill their fellow Ukrainians in a war that they know is being run by the corrupt, U.S. backed government in Kiev. The photo is of Ukrainian soldiers surrendering to the rebels in Eastern Ukraine

On February 10, the Guardian reported that Ukrainian journalist:

Ruslan Kotsaba posted a video addressed to the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, last week in which he said he would rather go to prison for five years for draft-dodging than fight pro-Russia rebels in the country’s east. Now he faces 15 years in jail after being arrested for treason and obstructing the military.

Justin Raimondo, reports at Antiwar.com about the growing anti-war movement in Ukraine:

Draft resistance is at an all-time high: a mere 6 percent of those called up [to fight the rebels in the eastern provinces] have reported voluntarily. This has forced the Kiev authorities to go knocking on doors—where they are met either with a mass of angry villagers, who refuse to let them take anyone, or else ghost towns where virtually everyone has fled. In the Transcarpathia region of western Ukraine, entire villages have been emptied, the inhabitants fleeing to Russia to wait out the war—or the fall of the Kiev regime, whichever comes first. “It may seem a paradox,” says Transcarpathia’s chief recruitment officer, “but from the western Ukrainian region of Ternopyl people have fled to Russia in order to escape army conscription.” The frantic [U.S backed] Ukrainian regime is now contemplating conscripting women over 20.

Poroshenko’s military mobilization is due not only to numerous setbacks in the east – Ukrainian troops are being pushed back on all fronts by highly motivated rebels defending their own towns and villages – but also because thousands are deserting, throwing down their arms and fleeing to Russia. In response, the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law authorizing local commanders to shoot deserters on the spot.

Raimondo continues:

With [Ukrainian president] Poroshenko’s war looking like a major disaster, one that could easily topple his EU/US-installed regime, the War Party in the US is turning up the heat, demanding that Washington provide Kiev with arms. Sen. John McCain is – naturally – leading the charge, but prominent liberals are also in the front ranks, with leading scholars of the Brookings Institution recently calling for heavy weapons to be sent. That provoked a response from a dissident within Brookings, former State Department official Jeremy Shapiro, who argues that the Ukrainian conflict is a civil war that cannot have a military solution, and is more than likely to provoke a dangerous military confrontation with Russia.

Ya think? Raimondo nails it:

All this [fomenting a coup and a civil war in Ukraine] was done in the name of sticking a finger in Vladimir Putin’s eye, whose great sin has been kicking out thieving oligarchs and opposing US pretensions to global hegemony. Washington’s ultimate goal is regime-change in the Kremlin, and the reinstallation of a Yeltsin-like sock puppet who, when Washington says “Jump!” will answer: “How high?”

The truth about the United States is this: anyone who challenges U.S. global economic and/or military hegemony will be taken out. The standard playbook includes the demonization, in the media, of whatever leader is in the U.S.’s crosshairs in order to justify an illegitimate war against the country in question for the economic gain of banks and corporations. And so, in corporate-owned media, Putin is mocked and vilified by “journalists” who regurgitate the false narratives fed to them by the White House, State Department, intelligence community and military. This, of course, is to legitimize regime-change in the eyes of U.S. citizens as well as the obscene sums our Wall Street/ corporate-backed government spends on war.

That they’re [President Obama and the military/industrial/intelligence complex] willing to risk World War III in order to achieve their goal underscores the sheer craziness of US foreign policy. The latest official US “National Security Strategy” puts the new cold war at the center of Washington’s military-diplomatic vision—an emphasis so monstrously misplaced that it’s hard to believe they’re serious.

Yet you had better believe it: this is what we can expect from a future Democratic administration, if one should come to pass, with Hillary Clinton taking her husband’s Slavophobia—remember the Kosovo war?— to new heights of unreason.

The post Ukrainians refusing to fight in U.S. proxy war with Russia appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I suspect that most Americans don’t realize how much we are responsible for the acts of terror being committed in European countries. I know I didn’t give it much thought until I read an article by an American writer living in Norway. It makes sense that the millions of refugees from wars in the Middle East and Africa have to go somewhere. Most of us see the news on TV and feel sorry for the innocent families, especially the children, in those awful camps in eastern Turkey, without giving a second thought to our role in creating the chaos they are suffering.

Americans make up only 5 percent of the world’s population, but it appears that we have a disproportionate power to make people in other countries afraid of our irrational behavior. The occupation of Iraq and dismantling of its internal equilibrium in 2003 is now regarded as the tragic mistake that set the dominoes in that part of the world in motion. How ironic that Americans believed for 40 years that communism would spread and that governments all over the world would fall like dominoes if we didn’t stop it in places like Vietnam. We are still paying for that mistake.

But it wasn’t communism that set the Middle East on fire. It was overzealous Americans who set dominoes falling. We pulled the foundational brick out of what was never a sturdy structure to begin with.

Now European nations with generous immigration policies are paying for our blind obedience to the warmongers in the Bush White House. People living in hopeless situations, far from family and everything that comforts them, are easy targets for recruiters to a cause that gives them purpose. We shouldn’t be surprised that young Europeans with little stake in their own society should be easily converted as well.

No matter how much President Obama and Pentagon officials claim our drone attacks are killing only their targets, we know better. Imagine living day and night never knowing if bombs might be exploding next door. To those whose family members are killed by American firepower, WE are the terrorists.

To Europeans dealing with all the problems created by our wars in the Middle East, WE are the dangerous ones. They wait and watch to see which country America will target next. Yes, we know there are people in many countries that want to harm us, but we are creating more enemies than we can ever kill by relying on military solutions.

Sadly, we have no choice. Our Congress is trapped in the black hole known as “national security.” President Eisenhower, when he warned of the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex could never have imagined what is happening now. (For more on how private contractors control Congress and the Pentagon, read James Risen’s Pay Any Price.)

And we are “paying the price” at home for the damage we create around the world. Fear is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the war profiteers. Add to that the constant messages we hear from those who profit by scaring us to death and we have the perfect storm of a nation at war with itself. No wonder Americans kill each other at a higher rate than any other “civilized” country.

In an article called “Have Americans Gone Crazy?,” Ann Jones sums it up this way:

Europeans understand, as it seems Americans do not, the intimate connection between a country’s domestic and foreign policies. They often trace America’s reckless conduct abroad to its refusal to put its own house in order. They’ve watched the United States unravel its flimsy safety net, fail to replace its decaying infrastructure, disempower most of its organized labor, diminish its schools, bring its national legislature to a standstill, and create the greatest degree of economic and social inequality in almost a century. They understand why Americans, who have ever less personal security and next to no social welfare system, are becoming more anxious and fearful.

Where do we go from here? It has taken us several decades to unravel our society’s best hope for future peace and prosperity. If we start now opening the eyes of the willfully blind American voters, we might be able to replace the war mongers in power with women and men who truly represent the needs of the people. We can’t afford any more to be bystanders shaking our heads and wondering what to do. There are groups already working on shifting the public conversation. Find one and get to work.

The post America’s role in spawning terror appeared first on Occasional Planet.