“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” Dwight David Eisenhower, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech,” 1961, 
“My observation is that the impact of national elections on the business climate for SAIC has been minimal. The emphasis on where federal spending occurs usually shifts, but total federal spending never decreases. SAIC has always continued to grow despite changes in the political leadership in Washington.” Former SAIC manager, quoted in Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, “Washington’s $8 Billion Shadow.” Vanity Fair, March 2007
“We make American military doctrine” Ed Soyster, MPRI
The Myth of the Grand Chessboard: Geopolitics and Imperial Folie de Grandeur
In the Road to 9/11 I summarized the dialectic of open societies: how from their energy they expand, leading to a higher level of more secretive corporations and agencies, which eventually weaken the home country through needless and crushing wars. I am not alone in seeing America in the final stages of this process, which since the Renaissance has brought down Spain, the Netherlands, and Great Britain.
Much of what I wrote summarized the thoughts of writers before me like Paul Kennedy and Kevin Phillips. But there is one aspect of the curse of expansion that I underemphasized: how dominance creates megalomanic illusions of insuperable control, and how this illusion in turn is crystallized into a prevailing ideology of dominance. I am surprised that so few, heretofore, have pointed out that from a public point of view these ideologies are delusional, indeed perhaps insane. In this essay I will argue however that what looks demented from a public viewpoint makes sense from the narrower perspective of those profiting from the provision of private entrepreneurial violence and intelligence.
Obama WH Doublespeak of the Day: The ‘War on Terror’ is Over (but the ‘Overseas Contingency Plan’ has just begun)
Jake Tapper, Teddy Davis, and Kirit Radia report: Is there a war on the term “War on Terror”? Apparently not. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to the story. After days of confusion and denial about whether the Obama administration was officially no longer using the term “War on Terror,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration is no longer speaking of a “War on Terror.” “I haven’t gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It’s just not being used,” said Clinton during a briefing with reporters aboard her plane to the Hague to attend an international conference on Afghanistan. “The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself,” she said at a different point during her trip. “Obviously.” The discontinuation of the term “War on Terror” marks a departure from the practice of the Bush administration which began using the phrase in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Many in the international community take issue with the term, finding it overly broad. The story began after the Washington Post’s Al Kamen obtained an e-mail from an official in the Office of Security Review, Dave Reidel, saying that, “This Administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ (GWOT). Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ “
President Obama has just laid out his new war strategy. And he’s made it clear that the fight is both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I asked Dennis McDonough, with the National Security Council: Does that mean U.S. ground forces in Pakistan? Or more drone attacks? “I’m not going to comment on the notions you laid out there,” he answered, during a White House conference call with bloggers. But during a separate press conference, Bruce Reidel, who recently completed a strategy review of the region for the White House, offered some hints. “Thus far, our policy sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries, but one theater of operations for our diplomacy, and one challenge for our overall policy,” he said. “We have very concrete proposals for increasing economic assistance to Pakistan, proposals that have already been put forward by the Congress. We’re also looking at what we can do on the military side.” Michele Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, added, “I certainly believe we are going to be increasing our intelligence focus in this [Afghan-Pakistan] theater, and as opportunities arise that may increase the pace of operations, as well.” Richard Holbrooke, the administration special envoy to the region, said about Pakistan: “of all the dilemmas, problems and challenges we face, that’s going to be the most daunting, because it’s a sovereign country and there is a red line. And the red line is unambiguous and stated publicly by the Pakistani government over and over again: No foreign troops on our soil.” Last week, Holbrooke said “we must respect” that “red line.” Yet, when given the opportunity today to state unambiguously that U.S. troops won’t go to Pakistan, administration officials didn’t give a clear answer. If anything, they side-stepped the question.
According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession. A fierce debate has now ensued in China about who that foreign power may be, with China itself as well as Russia and even Japan suspected to be the targets of aggression. The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets. The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan offered a grim view Wednesday of military efforts in southern Afghanistan, warning that 17,000 new troops will take on emboldened Taliban insurgents who have “stalemated” U.S. and allied forces. Army Gen. David McKiernan also predicted that the bolstered numbers of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan — about 55,000 in all — will remain near those levels for up to five years.
More bait and switch from the Obama Administration: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21. But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting. Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy. A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.
About a year ago, Charlie Rose, the nighttime talk-show host, was interviewing Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the military adviser at the White House coordinating efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. “We have never been beaten tactically in a fire fight in Afghanistan,” Lute said. To even casual students of the Vietnam War, his statement has an eerie echo. One of the iconic exchanges of Vietnam came, some years after the war, between Col. Harry Summers, a military historian, and a counterpart in the North Vietnamese Army. As Summers recalled it, he said, “You never defeated us in the field.” To which the NVA officer replied: “That may be true. It is also irrelevant.” Vietnam analogies can be tiresome. To critics, especially those on the left, all American interventions after Vietnam have been potential “quagmires.” But sometimes clichés come true, and, especially lately, it seems that the war in Afghanistan is shaping up in all-too-familiar ways. The parallels are disturbing: the president, eager to show his toughness, vows to do what it takes to “win.” The nation that we are supposedly rescuing is no nation at all but rather a deeply divided, semi-failed state with an incompetent, corrupt government held to be illegitimate by a large portion of its population. The enemy is well accustomed to resisting foreign invaders and can escape into convenient refuges across the border. There are constraints on America striking those sanctuaries. Meanwhile, neighboring countries may see a chance to bog America down in a costly war. Last, there is no easy way out. True, there are important differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam. The Taliban is not as powerful or unified a foe as the Viet Cong. On the other hand, Vietnam did not pose a direct national-security threat; even believers in the “domino theory” did not expect to see the Viet Cong fighting in San Francisco. By contrast, while not Taliban themselves, terrorists who trained in Afghanistan did attack New York and Washington in 2001. Afghanistan has always been seen as the right and necessary war to fight—unlike, for many, Iraq. Conceivably, Gen. David Petraeus, the architect of the successful surge in Iraq and now, as the head of Central Command in charge of the fight in Afghanistan, could pull off another miraculous transformation. Privately, Petraeus is said to reject comparisons with Vietnam; he distrusts “history by analogy” as an excuse not to come to grips with the intricacies of Afghanistan itself. But there is this stark similarity: in Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, we may now be facing a situation where we can win every battle and still not win the war—at least not within a time frame and at a cost that is acceptable to the American people.
…notice still how Newsweek tries to propagandize and spin the story by implying the war on terror is not just as false as the domino theory in the height of Communist paranoia during the Cold War. At least in the Vietnam War, the Shadow Government created incidents overseas to embark on imperial interventionist folly. However with Oklahoma City and 9/11, the Shadow Government has demonstrated that it will go for broke creating whatever terror attack it needs WITHIN the United States to justify their permanent imperial blood lust.
The arrival of the Obama administration will not fundamentally alter the course of military expansion accelerated during the Bush era. The origins of these policies do not lie uniquely in neoconservative ideology. While the election of President Obama may offer new opportunities for progressive forces to delimit the damage, their space for movement will ultimately be constrained by deep-seated structural pressures that will attempt to exploit Obama to rehabilitate American imperial hegemony, rather than transform it. Indeed, the radicalization of Anglo-American political ideology represented by the rise of neoconservative principles and the militarization processes of the ‘War on Terror’, constituted a strategic response to global systemic crises supported by the American business classes. The same classes, recognizing the extent to which the Bush era has discredited this response, have rallied around Obama. Therefore, as global crises intensify, this militarization response is likely to undergo further radicalization, rather than a meaningful change in course. The key differences will be in language and method, not substance.
- SUPER BOWL FALSE FLAG RED ALERT: More Revelation of the Method in “The Dark Knight Rises” (Orden Ab Chao)?
- BIOTERRORISM RED ALERT: Illuminazis Conduct Live Test of Transgenic Ebola Based Airborne Bioweapon in Birds
- A Very Hyphy Obama Joker Poster Entry: We Are Change SF Guerilla Plasters the Bay Area
- Bob Dylan Stopped By Cops, Asked For ID In New Jersey Shore Town
- Obaaaama-Alex Jones Claymation
- Peter Dale Scott: The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War
- Pentagon’s loyal sock puppet CNN releases photos of Air Force One flyover psyop and an especially fragrant series Al Qaeda horse manure propaganda pieces to coinicide with conclusion of NLE-2009
- Wayne Madsen: NC Terrorists Conveniently Arrested During NLE 2009 Unsurprisingly have CIA Connections
- FLASHBACK: Scientists Describe How 1918 Influenza Virus Sample Was Exhumed In Alaska
- FLASHBACK on Anniversary of Anthrax Patsy Bruce Ivins’ Assassination: The mysterious deaths of top microbiologists
- Military planning for possible H1N1 outbreak
- Cheney pressed Bush to test Constitutional limits by using military force on US soil to arrest “suspected terrorists”
- 911 Truth vs. Government 911 Fantasy
- Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam
- African Interventionism
- Agricultural Warfare
- Alex Jones/ Infowars
- Ancient Technologies and Elite Occultism
- Anderson Cooper Comes out of the Closet Watch
- Apple vs. Microsoft: Pirate of the Silicon Valley Round 2
- Architects of the New World Order
- Assault on Free Speech
- Assault on the Fourth Amendment
- Assault on the Second Amendment
- Biological Terrorism
- California Recall?
- Catholic Church's Institutional Pedophilia
- Child Abuse
- Colbert Nation
- Cover Up
- Daily Show/Jon Stewart
- David Icke
- Domestic State Sponsored Terrorism
- Draft Watch
- Draft Watch/Draft Riots
- EU Dictatorship
- EU/NATO-Russia Conflict
- Eugenics Movement Against Women
- FEMA Concentration Camps
- Financial High Treason
- Georgia-Russia Conflict
- HAARP/ Geophysical Weapons
- High Treason and Corruption
- Imperial Hubris
- Israeli Elections
- Israeli Terror Propaganda/ Threats
- Israeli-American Iran Propaganda
- Israeli-Arab Conflict
- JFK and the Kennedy Legacy
- Liberty 2.0
- Marijuana Prohibition
- Mexico: Controlled Collapse as the Premise for the NAU
- Net Neutrality
- New Cold War
- New World Order "Environmentalism"
- New World Order Disease Management
- New World Order Uncloaks
- Northcom Designates all US Citizens Enemy Combatants
- Nuclear Weapons
- Obama Mass Hopenosis/Hypenosis
- Pakistan War Watch
- Panopticon USA
- Police State Brutality
- Popular Culture Social Programming
- Prison Planet
- Reclaiming Liberty
- Riot Watch
- Ron Paul Revolution
- State Sponsored Terrorism
- Steve Jobs Health Watch
- Technology Future Shock
- Third Clinton Administration
- Torture and Rendition
- United States of Amnesia
- We Are Change
- Web 2.0
- Zbig's Proxy Cannon Fodder Gambit