Thursday, September 4, 2014
The CURRENT WARS of Obama's Fed Government
The USA's Fed Gov't is involved in the following wars. They are wars because Obama is having the U.S. Military (not Law Enforcement personnel) shoot at people and kill them. That's war. These all belong to Obama now.
1. The Third Iraq War, the one launched just recently.
2. The ongoing War in Pakistan, the one where the highest levels of our Gov't order Hellfire missiles to be shot (from drones) at SUSPECTS.
3. Ditto the War in Yemen.
4. Ditto the War in Somalia.
5. The War in Afghanistan, our longest war, and the one nobody is quite sure anymore why it is that we're still there. Obviously, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Raytheon, CACI, GE, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, and several other transnational mega corporations are enjoying tremendous benefits from that never-ending war, but surely that's not a good enough reason to STILL be there. Is it? Well, yes, if you are a member of the Plutocracy in a soft Fascist State such as the USA---where the public constantly is being bombarded with Edward Bernays style propaganda---then it is a good enough reason. Follow the money; war is Big Business...very big.
Those are the wars of which I am aware and/or can remember at the moment. Perhaps there are others as well. Some may attempt to argue that those five wars really are all one war--- the War on Terrorism. It's a tempting argument, and we certainly have been propagandized enough to believe it. If, however, we engage in some critical thinking, that argument quickly falls apart. Consider the following.
1. The fanatics we're fighting are all in separate entities; there is no "central command". There is no group with the title, "Terrorism". So, for example, the Taliban (whose leaders we hosted here in 1997 in order to negotiate a pipeline in Afghanistan) have completely different objectives as compared to ISIS. They only want to run Afghanistan, as they were doing in 1997 when we invited them here for a business deal. [Query: did our Gov't consider them nasty brutes then? If so, why were we treating them as potential business partners?]
2. The propaganda is this (especially amongst so-called "Conservatives"): there is one group we're fighting; it's "the Muslims", in particular, the fanatical element of the Muslims. Really? So, are they Sunnis or Shiites? The fanatics, the extremists in Islam (not the mainstream) are at each other's throats. They are not one group. They appear to be worried more about each other than about us. Plus, from what I can see, the Taliban don't give a damn about anything except Afghanistan. Us still being in that country is complete nonsense. To think of "the Muslims" as a monolithic, homogeneous entity also is nonsense.
3. Specifically, whose military are we fighting in this supposed "War on Terrorism"? The people we're fighting are not in an Army; they are a bunch of heterogeneous criminal gangs (of a sort). They each have their own agenda. Should any of them ever attack the USA again, it is a matter for Law Enforcement, not our Military. Most all of the plots against our country have been thwarted by LAW ENFORCEMENT Agencies, not our Armed Forces. Soldiers are not cops, and shouldn't be expected to fulfill that function.
Finally, the five wars listed above are all illegal, unconstitutional wars. Three uses of the military are permitted by the Constitution: to repel invasions (of this country); to quell insurrections (in this country); and to enforce the laws of the land (in this country) when minor rebellions make that necessary---for example, the Whisky Rebellion of the late 1700s, or the refusal to integrate schools in the South in the mid-sixties. No law trumps the Constitution, so the War Powers Act cannot be used legally to justify going to war for some reason other than the three scenarios listed above.
That leaves only TREATIES to justify wars outside the USA (if we haven't been attacked at home). Treaties do trump the Constitution. IF that's what's being used to justify the five wars above, I'd like to see those Treaties...especially the one with Somalia or any of its neighbors. [As to Afghanistan, it wasn't the Taliban who attacked us on 9-11-01. Their refusal to turn over Osama supposedly justified us going to war with Afghanistan. The truth is: the Taliban replied to our Fed Govt's request by saying essentially this: show us some proof of his guilt and we'll turn him over to you. Our Gov't refused. Being a guest of an Afghan tribal society is a really big deal in their culture. I think the Taliban's request for proof was reasonable.] The funny thing is, I've never heard the DC Plutocrats use any Treaty to justify the wars in question. Usually they claim the right to go to war based on the War Powers Act and/or the duties of Commander-in-Chief. They certainly couldn't use a Treaty to justify invading Iraq in 2003; Saddam hadn't attacked any other country then, whether our ally or not. The Bush Administration's justification was that Saddam was guilty of PRE-Crime. [Explained in a previous post on this Blog.] As Bush put it, "If we wait for the smoking gun, it will be too late."...sounds good, but that's a completely illegal reason to attack and invade another country.
Any way you examine supposed justifications for the above-listed wars, they turn out to be illegal, unconstitutional, unethical, and even immoral. Welcome to the Soft Fascist States of America, a land I love, but sincerely regret the fact that we no longer have a representative government...and that's been true for decades. Carroll Quigley was right in 1966.
It's a genuine shame.