Victims of the American Empire: Us

EMPIRES THEN AND NOW

By Paul Craig Roberts/ Institute for Political Economy/ March 26, 2012

Great empires, such as the Roman and British, were extractive. The empires succeeded, because the value of the resources and wealth extracted from conquered lands exceeded the value of conquest and governance. The reason Rome did not extend its empire east into Germany was not the military prowess of Germanic tribes but Rome’s calculation that the cost of conquest exceeded the value of extractable resources.

The Roman empire failed, because Romans exhausted manpower and resources in civil wars fighting amongst themselves for power. The British empire failed, because the British exhausted themselves fighting Germany in two world wars.

In his book, The Rule of Empires (2010), Timothy H. Parsons replaces the myth of the civilizing empire with the truth of the extractive empire. He describes the successes of the Romans, the Umayyad Caliphate, the Spanish in Peru, Napoleon in Italy, and the British in India and Kenya in extracting resources. To lower the cost of governing Kenya, the British instigated tribal consciousness and invented tribal customs that worked to British advantage.

Parsons does not examine the American empire, but in his introduction to the book he wonders whether America’s empire is really an empire as the Americans don’t seem to get any extractive benefits from it. After eight years of war and attempted occupation of Iraq, all Washington has for its efforts is several trillion dollars of additional debt and no Iraqi oil. After ten years of trillion dollar struggle against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Washington has nothing to show for it except possibly some part of the drug trade that can be used to fund covert CIA operations.

America’s wars are very expensive. Bush and Obama have doubled the national debt, and the American people have no benefits from it. No riches, no bread and circuses flow to Americans from Washington’s wars. So what is it all about?

The answer is that Washington’s empire extracts resources from the American people for the benefit of the few powerful interest groups that rule America. The military-security complex, Wall Street, agri-business and the Israel Lobby use the government to extract resources from Americans to serve their profits and power. The US Constitution has been extracted in the interests of the Security State, and Americans’ incomes have been redirected to the pockets of the 1 percent. That is how the American Empire functions.

The New Empire is different. It happens without achieving conquest. The American military did not conquer Iraq and has been forced out politically by the puppet government that Washington established. There is no victory in Afghanistan, and after a decade the American military does not control the country.

In the New Empire success at war no longer matters. The extraction takes place by being at war. Huge sums of American taxpayers’ money have flowed into the American armaments industries and huge amounts of power into Homeland Security. The American empire works by stripping Americans of wealth and liberty.

This is why the wars cannot end, or if one does end another starts. Remember when Obama came into office and was asked what the US mission was in Afghanistan? He replied that he did not know what the mission was and that the mission needed to be defined.

Obama never defined the mission. He renewed the Afghan war without telling us its purpose. Obama cannot tell Americans that the purpose of the war is to build the power and profit of the military/security complex at the expense of American citizens.

This truth doesn’t mean that the objects of American military aggression have escaped without cost. Large numbers of Muslims have been bombed and murdered and their economies and infrastructure ruined, but not in order to extract resources from them.

It is ironic that under the New Empire the citizens of the empire are extracted of their wealth and liberty in order to extract lives from the targeted foreign populations. Just like the bombed and murdered Muslims, the American people are victims of the American empire.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal
Boldface added by BPR Editor
Posted in Afghanistan, foreign policy, Iraq, military, politics, war | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s Burden

THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA MACHINE VS. BARACK OBAMA

by Arlen Grossman/ The Big Picture Report

You may have heard it said that if President Obama discovered a cure for cancer, he would be criticized for putting oncologists out of work.

While amusing, there is truth to it. Consider the powerful influence of Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and other conservative media influences. White House communications director Anita Dunn stirred up a firestorm in 2009 when she labeled Fox News a “wing of the Republican Party.” However, everyone understood what she was talking about.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) famously said in 2010, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Combine that shot across the president’s bow with incessant attacks by right-wing media outlets, and the task of convincing the American people that the policies of the president and his party were good for the country became all that much tougher.

It should be obvious to anyone paying attention to the news that almost anything that President Obama and the Democrats do or propose to do is severely criticized by the right-wing media and the GOP in Congress. Republicans will often even abandon their own legislation and ideas if embraced by the White House.

With so many Americans, especially in the South and the middle of the country, relying on conservative media, there is at least 30 to 40 percent of the country that will rarely hear anything nice  or even neutral about Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. No matter how well things go, Obama’s media burden ensures the President’s approval ratings will never rise higher than 55 to 60 percent. And if conditions are not going well, his approval rating will sink much lower and he will be blamed, no matter how little his influence on the problem. The recent spike in gas prices, blamed on President Obama by many, is a good example.

A Rasmussen poll last week reported Americans favor repeal of Obama’s Health Care Law 56% to 39%.  This shouldn’t be surprising, considering “Obamacare” is attacked  and demonized daily by all the Republican presidential candidates and hourly by the right-wing news and opinion sources. And since President Obama is regarded as the titular head of his party, the media largely ignores what other Democratic leaders are saying.

This media burden is made all the more difficult because President Obama is not one to go on a vigorous offensive to promote his policies, preferring instead to appear bipartisan and moderate whenever possible. Republicans feel no such restraint and use their enormous media clout to sway public opinion.

There is one more advantage conservative media holds over liberal/progressive media. The righties allow certain segments of the public to feel okay about expressing their irrational fears and prejudices. If it is acceptable for Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc to verbally attack and poke fun at others who look or act different, and to act selfish and self-centered, then it implies permission for their audience to feel and behave the same.

In years past, when America was less ideologically divided, almost everyone could agree that the Moon Landing in 1969 was a great event for the whole country, as was President Nixon’s 1972 trip to China and President Carter’s Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt in 1978. We saw bipartisan support for civil rights, Medicare, and environmental legislation during those years.

There is almost nothing President Obama and the Democrats could do or propose now that will get support from Republicans and their media outlets. Even worse, the Right appears to have no problem distorting facts and lying.  They realize they won’t be called on their errors by the conservative media, so anything said, true or false, is justified as part of their mission to defeat Democrats and take control of every branch of government.

Is Obama’s race the major factor for all the right-wing negativity?  While there is certainly some racism fueling the hate in certain musty corners of the conservative movement, I don’t believe it to be the defining issue. Bill Clinton was vilified by the Right from Day One of his presidency and they never let up. I believe Obama’s Burden is  the result of a deliberative strategy funded by wealthy corporatists (The Koch Brothers and other billionaires, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.) funding free-market think tanks and buying up media outlets, in alliance with evangelical Christians and other social and  ideological conservatives. This long-range strategy has paid huge dividends in recent years, culminating in their virtual monopoly of news content across a good swath of our nation.

It is fair to say that some media networks and shows are clearly biased toward the Democrats and the Left, but there is no evidence that they use outright lies and factual distortions to anywhere near the extent used by the Right.

The powerful right-wing media machine, combined with the unlimited campaign coffers unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, puts President Obama and his allies on the Left at a decided disadvantage when it comes to influencing public opinion. It’s as if they are starting a race carrying a heavy weight on their shoulders while running to the November election finish line. It is a burden that will require a lot of muscle and luck to overcome.

PUBLISHED IN OPEDNEWS.COM 03/28/2012

Posted in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, media, politics, Republican Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rare National TV Commercial Promotes Church-State Separation

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a state/church watchdog and the nation’s largest freethought association, is placing its first national ad on the “CBS Evening News” tonight. This same ad debuted on “CBS Sunday Morning” yesterday. 

–FFRF News Release

Posted in government, religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How to Reform Corporate America

The Necessity and Possibility of Corporate Reform: Part 2. Reform Strategies

by Gary Brumback/ OpEdNews.com/ March 25, 2012

Moving a mountain might be easier than moving government back to democracy and away from a corpocracy that has put government in the back seat and corporateAmerica in the driver’s seat. Corporate reform, with the exception of trying to reform the merchants of death (discussed at the end of this article), in contrast to government reform, may just be an easier way to slow America’s sliding into a state of ruiNation. The introductory article ended by suggesting steps watchdog groups could take in searching for the “scoundrels and saints” among corporateAmerica and its many allies.Watchdogs that only watch are nothing more than lapdogs. We Americans ought to have had enough of an over fed lazy fed lapdog that lets corporate America exploit and harm us.   Just as obviously, no more effective than lapdogs are proposals that stay stuck to paper. This final article I hope is on “Teflon.”Are there any instigators of corporate reform?A few basically isolated and relatively impotent NGOs. At the considerable risk of some omissions and commissions I poured through my list of 100 some NGOs and found a few that were actually confronting corporations and industries in various ways such as sending petitions to corporations to cease particular kinds of wrongdoing; holding protests at corporations’ headquarters (some ending in arrests); warning consumers of instances of corporate fraud; lock downs at banks; blockades of shipments; organizing actions to stop corporations’ selling of unhealthy products; and exposing the most harmful corporations to a “Hall of Shame.”

Activist Bankster USA www.banksterusa.org ; Beyond Talk www.beyondtalk.net ; Center for Corporate Policy www. corporatepolicy . org ; Center for Economic Justicewww.econjustice.net ;   The Center for Justice & Democracy www.centerjd.org ; Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund www.celdf.org ; Corporate Accountability Internationalwww.stopcorporateabuse.org ; Corporate Ethics International   www.corpethics.org ; The Democracy Center www.democracyctr.org ; Greenpeace USA www.greenpeaceusa.org ; Mobilization for Climate Justice www.actforclimatejustice.org ; National People’s Actionwww.showdowninamerica.org ;     The Peace Alliance www.thepeacealliance.org ; Program on Corporations, Law, and Democracy. www.poclad.org ; Rising Tide North Americawww.risingtidenorthamerica.org ; United Students Against Sweatshops www.usasnet.org .

A few NGOs in supporting roles. As I was going through my bigger list I spotted some NGOs that are carrying out supporting roles like public education, activist skill training, helping to build grassroots movements, helping to organize oppositions to corporations, and helping to expand small and local business alternatives. Here are some of these groups:

A few scattered, disconnected and impotent movements. There are so many grassroots movements in America that a person cataloguing them once pleaded for help in recording the new ones sprouting. They usually start out and stay small-scale, limited to specific “back yard” issues that concern local communities or regions. The movement getting the most publicity today seems to be OWS and its offshoots that I lump together into Occupy America. As far as I can tell it’s still an inward, process-oriented movement (for a cogent critique of it, see the article in the March 21, 2012 issue of OpEdNews.com by Danny Schechter author of the new book “Occupy: Dissecting Occupy Wall Street” with hands-on experience in civil rights and community organizing.

Who ought to start instigating?

This is a pivotal question. If NGOs and various and sundry movements could be caught in a moment of unguarded candor I think they would admit that their impact on either government reforms and/or corporate reforms has been essentially negligible. Government is as corrupt as ever. Corrupt industries and their corporations are still as corrupt as ever. Here is my list of answers:

A large cadre of NGO strike forces. They don’t exist yet, just like my proposed U.S. Chamber of Democracy doesn’t exist yet. While I haven’t given up on the prospect of the latter, I am going to modify my overtures to the many remaining NGOs yet to be contacted and suggest to them either supporting an umbrella network like a USCD or a scaled-down alternative of dividing up the industries and their corporations and for each creating a cadre of NGO strike forces.

The Democracy Coalition. It doesn’t exist yet either. In my website,www.uschamberofdemocracy.com I identified 27 segments of the populace that have or should have grievances against the corpocracy. Most of them have yet to coalesce into their own movements but a few have. Labor, for example, is one of them, yet it remains to be seen just how far the unions reach out to other groups. I have gotten no replies to my overtures to the heads of the major unions.

You. Readers of OpEdNews.com ought to become instigators. You may already be one. If you are, can you do more? John Perkins ended his article on the vicious circle of military aggression in the March 21, 2012 issue of OpEdNews.com by exhorting readers to “Take at least one action for peace every single day.” I wrote him immediately that he should do more given his visibility (I had written in 2006 a published review of his book “Confessions of an economic hit man” that had given him instant publicity).

You could champion the idea of the USCD and The Democracy Coalition. You could write particular NGOs and tell them to be less dependent for their existence on the continued existence of the corpocracy. If you donate money to any of them tell them you are not getting your money’s worth. And as you read the rest of this article think of additional ways you could get more involved.

The scoundrels themselves? Don’t laugh. It’s not out of the question. I will return to it shortly.

How not to start instigating: Three stories of mice at the table with hungry cats  (Continued)

Read entire Part II here

Read Part I here

Gary Brumback, Ph. D, wrote The Devil’s Marriage: Break Up the Corpocracy or Leave Democracy in the Lurch. His website is uschamberofdemocracy.com

Posted in Economics, economy, finance, government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Wall Street & High Gas Prices

My letter to the Editor in today’s Monterey County Herald:

So who’s to blame for the spike in gas prices? Their names should sound familiar. Among the major culprits are the same financial behemoths that caused the world economic meltdown four years ago. Speculation in the oil futures market by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, et al. has driven up the cost we pay at the pump.  According to Senator Bernie Sanders, Wall Street speculators controlled 30 percent of the oil futures market ten years ago, now they control over 80 percent. The Consumer Federation of America estimated the average household will spend an extra $600 a year due to speculation. You can thank both major political parties for the bank deregulation that made this possible and keeps it going.

Arlen Grossman

Posted in Democratic Party, Economics, finance, Republican Party, Wall Street | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Split in the GOP

Posted in elections, Republican Party | Leave a comment

War = Murder

Murder Is Not an Anomaly in War

by Chris Hedges/ TruthDig/ March 19, 2012

The war in Afghanistan—where the enemy is elusive and rarely seen, where the cultural and linguistic disconnect makes every trip outside the wire a visit to hostile territory, where it is clear that you are losing despite the vast industrial killing machine at your disposal—feeds the culture of atrocity. The fear and stress, the anger and hatred, reduce all Afghans to the enemy, and this includes women, children and the elderly. Civilians and combatants merge into one detested nameless, faceless mass. The psychological leap to murder is short. And murder happens every day in Afghanistan. It happens in drone strikes, artillery bombardments, airstrikes, missile attacks and the withering suppressing fire unleashed in villages from belt-fed machine guns.

Military attacks like these in civilian areas make discussions of human rights an absurdity. Robert Bales, a U.S. Army staff sergeant who allegedly killed 16 civilians in two Afghan villages, including nine children, is not an anomaly. To decry the butchery of this case and to defend the wars of occupation we wage is to know nothing about combat. We kill children nearly every day in Afghanistan. We do not usually kill them outside the structure of a military unit. If an American soldier had killed or wounded scores of civilians after the ignition of an improvised explosive device against his convoy, it would not have made the news. Units do not stick around to count their “collateral damage.” But the Afghans know. They hate us for the murderous rampages. They hate us for our hypocrisy.

The scale of our state-sponsored murder is masked from public view. Reporters who travel with military units and become psychologically part of the team spin out what the public and their military handlers want, mythic tales of heroism and valor. War is seen only through the lens of the occupiers. It is defended as a national virtue. This myth allows us to make sense of mayhem and death. It justifies what is usually nothing more than gross human cruelty, brutality and stupidity. It allows us to believe we have achieved our place in human society because of a long chain of heroic endeavors, rather than accept the sad reality that we stumble along a dimly lit corridor of disasters. It disguises our powerlessness. It hides from view the impotence and ordinariness of our leaders. But in turning history into myth we transform random events into a sequence of events directed by a will greater than our own, one that is determined and preordained. We are elevated above the multitude. We march to nobility. But it is a lie. And it is a lie that combat veterans carry within them. It is why so many commit suicide.

“I, too, belong to this species,” J. Glenn Gray wrote of his experience in World War II. “I am ashamed not only of my own deeds, not only of my nation’s deeds, but of human deeds as well. I am ashamed to be a man.”

When Ernie Pyle, the famous World War II correspondent, was killed on the Pacific island of Ie Shima in 1945, a rough draft of a column was found on his body. He was preparing it for release upon the end of the war in Europe. He had done much to promote the myth of the warrior and the nobility of soldiering, but by the end he seemed to have tired of it all:

But there are many of the living who have burned into their brains forever the unnatural sight of cold dead men scattered over the hillsides and in the ditches along the high rows of hedge throughout the world.

Dead men by mass production—in one country after another—month after month and year after year. Dead men in winter and dead men in summer.

Dead men in such familiar promiscuity that they become monotonous.

Dead men in such monstrous infinity that you come almost to hate them.

These are the things that you at home need not even try to understand. To you at home they are columns of figures, or he is a near one who went away and just didn’t come back. You didn’t see him lying so grotesque and pasty beside the gravel road in France.

We saw him, saw him by the multiple thousands. That’s the difference.

There is a constant search in all wars to find new perversities, new forms of death when the initial flush fades, a rear-guard and finally futile effort to ward off the boredom of routine death. This is why during the war in El Salvador the death squads and soldiers would cut off the genitals of those they killed and stuff them in the mouths of the corpses. This is why we reporters in Bosnia would find bodies crucified on the sides of barns or decapitated. This is why U.S. Marines have urinated on dead Taliban fighters. Those slain in combat are treated as trophies by their killers, turned into grotesque pieces of performance art. It happened in every war I covered.

“Force,” Simone Weil wrote, “is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.”

War perverts and destroys you. It pushes you closer and closer to your own annihilation—spiritual, emotional and finally physical. It destroys the continuity of life, tearing apart all systems—economic, social, environmental and political—that sustain us as human beings. In war, we deform ourselves, our essence. We give up individual conscience—maybe even consciousness—for contagion of the crowd, the rush of patriotism, the belief that we must stand together as a nation in moments of extremity. To make a moral choice, to defy war’s enticement, can in the culture of war be self-destructive. The essence of war is death. Taste enough of war and you come to believe that the Stoics were right: We will, in the end, all consume ourselves in a vast conflagration.

A World War II study determined that, after 60 days of continuous combat, 98 percent of all surviving soldiers will have become psychiatric casualties. A common trait among the remaining 2 percent was a predisposition toward having “aggressive psychopathic personalities.” Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his book “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,” notes: “It is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98 percent of all men insane, and the other 2 percent were crazy when they go there.”  (Continued)

Read the entire article here

Boldface added by BPR Editor
Posted in Afghanistan, military, war | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The War Profiteers

Posted in economy, inequality, military, Occupy, Occupy Wall Street, war | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Is Good War an Oxymoron?

The Shifting Strategies of Empire

by David Swanson/ March24, 2012

Remarks at the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) Conference:

President Obama this week declared the war on Iraq to be an honorable success that has given us a brighter future. Are you fired up? Ready to go?

Eric Holder this month explained that it’s legal for a president to kill anyone anywhere, or to imprison them, or to spy on them. I started to get upset about this, but then I remembered that Holder is a Democrat. That made me feel much better.

Leon Panetta told Congress this month that a president can launch a war without Congress and without the United Nations and without any legal restrictions, that a NATO decision to go to war makes a war legal, that a decision by an ad hoc coalition to go to war makes a war legal, and that in fact there’s no way for a war launched by a U.S. president not to be legal. At first this sounded like a dangerous doctrine, until I remembered that the president is not a Republican, and no Republican is going to be president for at least several months. So, there’s nothing to worry about.

Hillary Clinton this week said that we couldn’t end the war on Afghanistan without first protecting women’s rights. Already we’ve set up a government that endorses wife-beating. Perhaps when it mandates invasive ultrasounds we’ll be able to leave with honor.

In the past three years, largely in the absence of a peace movement, we’ve seen military spending rise. We’ve seen drone wars burst onto the scene in a major way. We’ve seen murder become the new torture. We’ve seen wars launched without even bothering to lie to Congress, and in fact with the intentional avoidance of any Congressional authorization. We’ve seen Special Forces active in over 100 countries. We’ve seen a massive escalation of the war on Afghanistan. We’ve seen bases imposed on more countries. We’ve seen an intense effort to surround China, and the people of Okinawa be damned, the people of Jeju Island be damned. We’re sending the Marines into Australia. We’re ruining Vicenza, Italy. We’re weaponizing space.

And we’re being told that the wars must continue so that our troops, dying more from suicide than anything else, will not have been killing themselves in vain. We’re told that more wars are needed as generous humanitarian philanthropy. We must bomb more nations because we care. We must have good wars instead of bad wars. We must send a brutal cop to lead the oppression of the nonviolent people of Bahrain, but send weapons to help the people of Syria because we love them — or — as John McCain recently put it, overthrowing the Syrian government would be a blow to Iran, which also needs to be overthrown.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough. I’ve had enough of calling the war department the defense department. I’ve had enough of war criminals going on book tour instead of trial. I’ve had enough of asking the wars to follow the rules of wars, like asking rapists to wear condoms. I’ve had enough of calling by the name “service” anything a member of the so-called service does other than resistance and conscientious objection. I’ve had enough of being told I should be outraged by urination on corpses. I’m outraged by the murder that produces the corpses. I’ve had enough of being told the environmental crisis is separate from the single biggest destroyer of our natural environment which must be patriotically supported. I’ve had enough of efforts to protect civil liberties, jobs, education, healthcare, retirement, the rule of law, and basic human decency without taking on the monstrosity that means death to all of the above, namely the military industrial complex. It’s a trillion-dollar banker bailout every year that we never get back.

Belief in humanitarian war keeps the dollars flowing into the beast that produces all the actual wars, the non-humanitarian wars, the murderous wars. We don’t distinguish between good and bad rape, just and unjust slavery. When our great-great grandparents outgrew dueling as a means of settling individual disputes, they didn’t ban aggressive dueling and keep defensive dueling around. When a movement to abolish war grew up at the turn of the last century, and then World War I convinced virtually everybody that the time to abolish war had come, a lawyer in Chicago named Samuel Oliver Levinson (Yale class of 1888) got his friends together and created an international movement for Outlawry, a movement to outlaw war. By 1928, the wealthy armed nations of the world, and some of the poorer nations too, had signed a treaty banning all war. Recognition of gains made through war ceased. Some wars were prevented. World War II was followed by trials for the brand new crime of war. And the rich nations have not made war on each other since. They just make war on poor countries.

And they lose. And they destroy themselves in the process. And the nobility and courage and sacrifice and solidarity that used to be found, or at least sought, in war, is now found in nonviolent activism, in the Arab Spring, in Wisconsin, in Occupy. In Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., this past fall, the police gave us a deadline to leave. We threw a dance party instead. And the police came back with a new offer. We could stay and they’d give us a permit for the next four months. In those moments it is possible to see people come to believe they have the power to end war. We’re back in DC starting March 30th. This May we need to be in Chicago when NATO is there. Our grandparents in the 1920s rejected the League of Nations and other alliances as the sort of entanglement that had led to World War I. NATO is just such an entanglement, a solution to war that facilitates war. We need to go to Chicago in the name of S.O. Levinson, the Chicago activist who decided that war could not be ended with the threat of war, that war could only be ended by ending war. In 1927 a Republican Secretary of State was cursing peace activists. In 1928 he was doing exactly what they told him to do, organizing the nations of the world, including Persia, to formally renounce war. That happened because a small group of people made a moral case against mass murder and persuaded the rest of the country that war was good for absolutely nothing.

DavidSwanson.org

Boldface added by BPR Editor
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, foreign policy, Iraq, Iraq war, military, war | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Video: The Real Mitt Romney

Posted in elections, humor, politics, Republican Party | Tagged , , | Leave a comment