Category Archives: War

UPDATED: Talking Truth Until You’re Blue In the Face

Debt, Economy, Education, Political Economy, Propaganda, War

Freedom’s real warriors labor with little support (and by “true” warriors I do not mean the Republican TV circus animals and tele-tarts who get face time and popular love in excess of their worth). Economist Robert Higgs laments “the bitter disappointment of seeing the [invaluable] research and writing [he has] carried out over more than forty years prove to have been completely in vain.” He wonders whether perhaps his mother ought to have strangled him in the crib, to spare him the bitter disappointment:

For all of the good I’ve done in correcting people’s understanding of what happened to the U.S. economy during World War and what lessons one might justifiably draw from that experience about, say, the scientific validity of the Keynesian model or its related fiscal-policy implications, I might just as well have held my breath and turned blue. Here we are in June 2011, and millions of Americans are being presented with the purest potion of economic misinformation one can imagine, an account in no way superior to those the young Keynesians were peddling so confidently in 1944, when I was born. …
When I began to teach U.S. economic history at the University of Washington in the late 1960s, I quickly realized that this tale of the wartime “Keynesian miracle” could not withstand critical scrutiny once one went beyond the barest account of it in terms of the elementary Keynesian model and the standard government macro measures, such as GDP, the consumer price index, and the rate of civilian unemployment. Almost immediately I saw that unemployment had disappeared during the war not because of the beautiful workings of a Keynesian multiplier, but entirely because about 20 percent of the labor force was forced, directly or indirectly, into the armed forces and a comparable number of employees set to work in factories, shipyards, and other facilities turning out war-related “goods” the government purchased only after forcing the public to pay for them sooner (via wartime taxes and inflation) or later (via repayment of wartime borrowing). Thus, the great wartime “boom” consisted entirely of (1) some people’s mass engagement in wreaking death and destruction and (2) other people’s employment in producing supplies for these warriors after the government’s military labor drain, turning out ”goods” never valued by consumers or private producers in voluntary transactions, but rather ordered by government functionaries and priced completely arbitrarily in a command-and-control economy. In no sense was the alleged ”wartime prosperity” comparable to real, normal prosperity. The pervasive regimentation, rationing, price controls, direct government resource allocations, and forbidden forms of production (e.g., civilian automobiles) should have served as a tip-off.

READ “World War II: Still Being Touted as the Quintessential Keynesian Miracle.”

UPDATE (March 5): “WARTIME SOCIALISM”: “… what politician would not warmly welcome an economist who, with the aid of indecipherable econometrics, legitimizes immoral power and property grabs? This is why the anti-free market central planning advocated by the late John Maynard Keynes has been embraced with renewed verve…”

The Chalabi Times Hoping Not to Repeat Iraq Disgrace

Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, UN, War, WMD

As I pointed out in 2005, Judith Chalabi Miller, the Gray Lady’s prized reporter, shilled for the Iraq war over the pages of the New York Times, like there was no tomorrow. The Bush White House, together with a wily Iraqi exile named Ahmad Chalabi, friend to the neoconservatives, fed the voracious birdbrain with misinformation and lies about WMD. The NYT and Miller, as much as FoxNews and its hot-for-war hotties, promoted the immoral, illegitimate, baseless war on Iraq.

Whereas the Times was prone to see faces in the clouds during the delirium of destruction in Iraq, it is now attempting to cleave to the facts about Iran.

“American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. …Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies. … Iranian officials maintain that their nuclear program is for civilian purposes. ” [NYT]

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, a nuclear scientist and Iran’s permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), speaks reasonably to his country’s need to produce radio isotopes for pharmaceuticals, a product of the nuclear industry. However, the US prefers to increase the burden and isolation of the Iranian people with sanctions. Pure evil and plain counterproductive.

Facts did nothing to sway the U.S. from attacking a prostrate, Third World nation, with no navy or air force, whose military prowess was a fifth of what was smashed in the Gulf War. Rationalizing these war crimes with lies post invasion became de rigueur in the major media.

Similarly, facts will not forestall an American assault on Iran. In the early days, Iraq had provided “documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD.” I recall the derision and mockery with which the Bush administration and its hangers-on greeted what turned out to be the only truthful document in the sad saga of Iraq.

The Terrible Troika’s Advisers

Bush, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, Republicans, War

The empire is bankrupt and in the throes of death. Its operatives are writhing with it, hanging onto the last shreds of the gory glory that came with directing American Manifest Destiny abroad. Unstable systems and people are most dangerous before dissolution and collapse.

This is why the advisers behind at least one of the presidential wannabees should be of interest.

But first, if you missed the primitive, atavistic utterances made by the terrible troika in Arizona with respect to Syria and Iran, here they are, excerpted in this Guardian post titled, “prolific proliferators of confusion.”

Except that there is nothing confused about the blood that’ll flow if one of these losers ascends to the executive throne. The Romney-Santorum-Gingrich bellicosity rivals Bush’s. The absence of any learning curve extends, seemingly, to their receptive audience, which applauded their every promise of action abroad.

Any criticism The Terrible Troika levies at Obama is for “showing weakness by not leading the allied air campaign in Libya, where the U.K and France played prominent roles, and not being tough enough on Iran to stop its nuclear-weapons efforts.”

More wars is what we’ll net with the three crappy candidates.

Romney’s Team sports these neoconservative heavy hitters:

Cofer Black, a former head of Central Intelligence Agency’s counterterrorism center and executive of the security firm Blackwater, now Xe Services; Meghan O’Sullivan, a Bloomberg View columnist and former White House official who oversaw Iraq and Afghanistan policy; Eliot Cohen, director of the Strategic Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a former counselor at Rice’s State Department; Dov Zakheim, the former Pentagon comptroller; and John Lehman, Ronald Reagan’s Navy secretary.

And “Robert Joseph, a White House National Security Council aide during Bush’s first term and later a State Department official.”

UPDATE II: The ‘Regime Change’ Alliance (Al-Qaida’s On-Board!)

Democracy, Islam, Media, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, Russia, War

“It’s clear enough that the Sunni alliance led by Saudia Arabia and Qatar has ensured that the insurgency inside Syria will countenance no ceasefire offers; and that the propaganda machine … will continue a non-stop flow of mendacious bulletins eagerly seized upon by the western press,” writes ALEXANDER COCKBURN, at Counterpunch.

In “Murder on her Mind,” I described our foreign policy as an “‘angels and demons’ Disney production, starring the prototypical evil dictator who was killing his noble people,” until, in the case of Libya, “three amazon warriors—high on estrogen-driven paternalism—rode to the rescue.” The three Gorgon sisters (Medusa’s posse) included Samantha Power (special assistant to the president and member of his National Security Council), UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

AISLING BYRNE, also of Couterpunch, sees a similar pattern play out in Syria. “Arguably, the most important component in this struggle for the ‘strategic prize’, he writes, “has been the deliberate construction of a largely false narrative that pits unarmed democracy demonstrators being killed in their hundreds and thousands as they protest peacefully against an oppressive, violent regime, a ‘killing machine’ led by the ‘monster’ Assad,” except that where BYRNE sees a plan, I see only hubris and the heights of stupidity.

Iraq, Libya and, now Syria, all were relatively secular and stable compared to where they are headed with the aid of NATO, the US and the Arab League (and their propaganda arm, Al Jazeera). Just imagine, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity are now on the same side–and whooping it up–for the Arab League and Al Jazeera!

MORE from AISLING BYRNE:

“Whereas in Libya, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) claimed it had “no confirmed reports of civilian casualties” because, as the New York Times wrote recently, “the alliance had created its own definition for ‘confirmed’: only a death that NATO itself investigated and corroborated could be called confirmed”. “But because the alliance declined to investigate allegations,” the Times wrote, “its casualty tally by definition could not budge – from zero”.In Syria, we see the exact opposite: the majority of Western mainstream media outlets, along with the media of the US’s allies in the region, particularly al-Jazeera and the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya TV channels, are effectively collaborating with the “regime change” narrative and agenda with a near-complete lack of questioning or investigation of statistics and information put out by organizations and media outlets that are either funded or owned by the US/European/Gulf alliance – the very same countries instigating the regime change project in the first place.
Claims of “massacres”, “campaigns of rape targeting women and girls in predominantly Sunni towns” ”torture” and even “child-rape” are reported by the international press based largely on two sources – the British-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights and the Local Co-ordination Committees (LCCs) – with minimal additional checking or verification.
Hiding behind the rubric – “we are not able to verify these statistics” – the lack of integrity in reporting by the Western mainstream media has been starkly apparent since the onset of events in Syria. A decade after the Iraq war, it would seem that no lessons from 2003 – from the demonization of Saddam Hussein and his purported weapons of mass destruction – have been learnt.

What we are seeing in Syria is a deliberate and calculated campaign to bring down the Assad government so as to replace it with a regime “more compatible” with US interests in the region.
The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in 2009. The report – “Which Path to Persia?” – continues to be the generic strategic approach for US-led regime change in the region.
A rereading of it, together with the more recent “Towards a Post-Assad Syria” (which adopts the same language and perspective, but focuses on Syria, and was recently produced by two US neo-conservative think-tanks) illustrates how developments in Syria have been shaped according to the step-by-step approach detailed in the “Paths to Persia” report with the same key objective: regime change.
The authors of these reports include, among others, John Hannah and Martin Indyk, both former senior neo-conservative officials from the George W Bush/Dick Cheney administration, and both advocates for regime change in Syria. Not for the first time are we seeing a close alliance between US/British neo-cons with Islamists (including, reports show, some with links to al-Qaeda) working together to bring about regime change in an “enemy” state.

UPDATE I (Feb. 16): MBS (below): Start using your head, or critical faculties. Had you been reading this site with any consistency over the last decade, you’d know that both members of “The Big Government Party” adhere to the neo-liberal or neoconservative ideology. The Counterpunch folks have always been onto—and upfront about—that aspect of the American foreign policy, as have I. Start reading and researching, sir. Times are too dire for you to continue to maintain the delusions of the two-party bifurcation. Certainly on matters of foreign policy, the two parties practically merge.

UPDATE II (Feb. 17): “The US spy chief has told the Congress President Bashar Al-Assad is fighting against Al-Qaeda of Iraq. James Clapper is the first top US official to acknowledge US might indirectly support insurgents. … He added that Syrian opposition groups, fighting against the existing regime of President al-Assad may have been infiltrated by Al-Qaida. ‘However likely without their knowledge,’ he said.” (RT)

Didn’t this happen in Libya, just the other day? Of course not. America would never be so stupid as to repeat mistakes.

In the face of such unadulterated idiocy, conspiracy becomes a viable explanation.