Endless War category archive
Your Military-Industrial Complex at Work 0
Read the tale of “Fat Leonard.” Here’s just a tiny bit:
He exploited the intelligence for illicit profit, brazenly ordering his moles to redirect aircraft carriers to ports he controlled in Southeast Asia so he could more easily bilk the Navy for fuel, tugboats, barges, food, water and sewage removal.
Over at least a decade, according to documents filed by prosecutors, Glenn Defense ripped off the Navy with little fear of getting caught because Francis had so thoroughly infiltrated the ranks.
The company forged invoices, falsified quotes and ran kickback schemes. It created ghost subcontractors and fake port authorities to fool the Navy into paying for services it never received.
Francis and his firm have admitted to defrauding the Navy of $35 million, though investigators believe the real amount could be much greater.
Collateral Damage 0
The old bumper sticker from my youth was correct. War is hazardous to humans and other living things.
New research indicates that war causes CTE.
Follow the link for an article as depressing as it is long.
“Words Mean What I Want Them To Mean” 0
At The Nation, William J. Astore considers the vocabulary of endless war. One might say that his article is an extrordinary rendition of enhanced obfuscation techniques.
A snippet:
I Want To Teach the World To Sing
In Perfect Hegemony Reprise
0
Harry Shearer interviews Andrew Bacevich about Bacevich’s new book detailing the America’s four decade misadventure in the Middle East.
It is a must-listen. The interview starts about five minutes in.
“I Want To Teach the World To Sing
in Perfect Hegemony”
0
At the Boston Review, Stephen Kinzer interviews Andrew Bacevich on the mess in the Middle East and how it got way. Bacevich argues convincingly that it’s all about the oil, complicated by hubris and misunderstanding, in short, a desire to be God Emperors of Dunes.
A snippet:
AB: The rationales were becoming more diffuse. Yes, oil remained a core interest—not only oil to be consumed at home but also oil to fuel the rest of the industrialized world, meaning many of our allies. But by this stage, there is something else: an effort, however ill-considered and lacking in specificity, to capitalize on the end of the Cold War, claiming the mantle of sole superpower, with U.S. military supremacy the ultimate manifestation of that status. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, the United States attempted to assert hegemony over a large part of the Islamic world. Again, there was no master plan. It was haphazard. It was arrogant. It was undertaken without any appreciation for the complexities involved or for what exertions hegemony would actually require.
Read the rest.
Have Guns, Will Travel 0
Swampwater rides again!
Warning: Language.
American Taliban: Jingo Unchained 0
Werner Herzog’s Bear thinks that the punditocracy is overlooking the central appeal of Donald Trump, even as they clutch their pearls and fall on their fainting couches, in the grip of the vapors at his ungentlemanly behavior.
Mr. Bear believes that uniting Trump’s appeals to bigotry, racism, and xenophobia is an overweening theme of aggressive nationalism*. I urge you to read his full piece; here’s a bit:
About the same time that Mr. Bear was forming his post, Giles Fraser of The Guardian offered his theory as to how Americans who loudly and vociferously proclaim their fealty to Jesus Christ can espouse policies that directly counter his words as reported in the four Gospels:
In short, he suggests that American fundamentalists evangelicals whatever they call themselves today you know who I mean have replaced the Prince of Peace with a God of War–that they have built their own Golden Christ, wrapped in an American flag, carrying an M16, and piloting a Predator drone.
Frankly, I think that both writers are onto something. In particular, it is much easier for persons to change their god than it is for them to change themselves. Christianists (or, as Michael in Norfolk calls them, “Christofascists”) have taken that step.
______________________
*Left implicit is the “white’ in nationalism.
Plus Ca Change 0
Shorter Dan Simpson: It’s deja vu all over again.
The Candidates Debate 0
Jim Wright is having trouble absorbing what he heard. A snippet:
Carpet bombing? Waterboarding? And the crowd cheered.
The crowd cheered.
What in the holy hell is it with these goddamned people?
When did the unabashed willingness to engage in the indiscriminate obliteration of entire populations, when did the enthusiastic willingness to torture our enemies, when did those things become traits anybody liberal or conservative would want in an American president?
Follow the link. Read the rest.
Bush’s War: Origins Issue 1
Der Spiegel interviews Michael Flynn, former chief of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, on the origins of ISIS. Whether or not you agree with all of Flynn’s conclusions, it’s worth a read. Here’s snippet (boldface in the original):
Flynn: … yes, absolutely …
SPIEGEL ONLINE: … the Iraq war?
Flynn: It was huge error. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him. The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision.
Misdirection Play 0
Trevor Timm tries to track all the misdirection plays since the attacks in Paris. Two nuggets:
(snip)
As dishonest as the “debate” over encryption has been, the dark descension of the Republican party into outright racism and cynically playing off the irrational fears of the public over the Syrian refugee crisis has been worse. We now know the attackers weren’t Syrian and weren’t even refugees. It was a cruel rumor or hoax that one was thought to have come through Europe with a Syrian passport system, but that was cleared up days ago. But in the world of Republican primaries, who cares about facts?
Follow the link for the misdirection play-by-play.
And the Beat Goes On 0
Dan Simpson points out that making war doesn’t make peace. A snippet:
(snip)
Our ability to even incrementally ease back from our global policy of confrontation that invites attack at home is probably nonexistent. There would instantly be squealing about “surrender.” Employing “wisdom” or even “careful, farsighted calculation” would not be welcome to America’s arms manufacturers and salespersons, certain deep-pocketed campaign contributors and loud-mouthed, small-brained, cupidinous politicians.
Do please read the rest.