Pocket Gofer 11

POCKET GOFER 11

Download the Pocket Gofer 11 here.

ON THE U.S. AS A WORLD CITIZEN

• SOME HISTORY
• THE SITUATION TODAY AS THE GOVERNMENT PERCEIVES IT
• THE SITUATION AS THE REST OF THE WORLD PERCEIVES IT: THE WORLD BULLY
• THE REALITY AND THE URGENCY
• A RECOMMENDATION
• CONCLUSION

After centuries of dedicated effort, mankind has finally acquired the ability to totally obliterate all human beings from the face of the earth.  And do it 5-6 times over.

We got to thinking about this development, and suddenly something weird grabbed us.  Maybe it is no coincidence that, just when we have acquired the above grisly capability and outlook, we have also acquired the technology to peaceably control world population growth.  Makes us wonder if there isn’t someone up there pulling strings.

Man is the only major animal who routinely kills his own kind.  This is probably because we have no natural enemies.  And now there is this apparent coincidence.

This pocket gofer will argue that we may be standing on the threshold of an economic world, where the merchant is replacing the warrior.  If true, we are living through a monumental passage in history.

A world without war?  Aw, come off it, Guv!  Look at any history book.  Look at the mess today in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so many other places.  Notice how many weapons the world has everywhere (especially right here).

We freely admit it sounds crazy, but how do we bring about real change if we dismiss apparently weird ideas before we have given them a hearing?  So let’s chew on this one for a while.

SOME HISTORY

In 1790 Thomas Paine observed that there were three considerations connected with war: its declaration, its financing, and its execution.  Place direct responsibility for declaration in those people who must pay for it and fight, kill, and die in it. Let them make the decision rather than an egotistical top public official and his generals.  When this is widely (and democratically) done, “—— we should hear but little more of wars.”

President and later secretary of state John Quincy Adams: “America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”  If this were to happen: “—— in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which —— usurp the standard of freedom.  ———————.  She might become the dictatress of the world.  She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit.”

Abraham Lincoln “Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion … and you allow him to make war at pleasure.” 

As young Bush in 2003 cast about for reasons to start a war 4,000 miles away he referred to Saddam Hussein’s presumed ability to attack/invade the US.  Today the war does not seem to be giving him much pleasure.

In 2007 British General Sir Michael Rose wrote Washington’s War: From Independence to Iraq.  He demonstrated in detail how the same “—– hubris and ignorance that led George III to lose the American colonies has guided the Americans’ conduct of their war in Iraq, leading to the same dismal results.”

Young career soldier Dwight Eisenhower was frustrated.  After World War I (1920) the US Army had shrunk to only 130,000 officers and men.  Then it got smaller.  By 1935 it ranked 16^th among the world’s armies.

Did any other nation see this trend, take advantage of our weakness, and attack?  Well, no.  We would like to see a figure estimating in today’s dollars the amount of taxpayer money saved between 1920 and 1940 due to the reduction in size of the army.

In 1935 Representative Louis Ludlow sponsored a Constitutional amendment, which required a referendum vote among the citizens in order to declare war.  It did not pass.

The same was introduced on April 1, 1971 (Vietnam War).  Those proposing it called it the “People Power over War” amendment.  Again no go.  Congressmen then and now don’t like the idea that those who must finance war and fight, kill, and die in it would have something to say about its declaration.

Friends, we thought we could portray the history of US warfare pretty well.  After we read James Carroll’s book House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power we realized we were not all that great.

Carroll grew up next to the Pentagon, so we make bold to borrow liberally from his terribly revealing book.  We saw in Pocket Gofer 18 that the gigantic Pentagon building was built with the intent of converting it to a peaceful use after WWII.

“Certainly the forces unleashed by WWII — unprecedented death, destruction, revolutionary technology — set the dynamic going.  Five-star General Dwight Eisenhower was a field general, not a paper-pusher.  He went to the battlefield to buck up morale among troops.  He saw the  unspeakable horror of ground combat, so in the oval office he became a peacenik.

 Just before retiring in early 1961 Ike warned against allowing the “military-industrial complex” to grow out of control.  But the vastly enlarged pentagon had a momentum that would never fully submit to controls no matter who applied them.  It became a bureaucracy that gobbled taxpayer money and spit out tragedy.

“Simple possession of the nuclear weapon had made American ——- tendency to elevate military power over civilian, put the Constitution itself on loose gravel ——-.”  This is precisely what Hamilton warned against in ca. 1792.

The fight started right after WWII.  Top career warriors in the Pentagon “—— readily cast their eyes forward to the next conflict, with a view to prevailing.  (Civilian Secretary of War Henry) Stimson understood at once that there would be no prevailing, and he moved to head off that next conflict.

“The American ‘peace plan,’ that is, included a provision for a UN-sanctioned atomic war against Moscow.”  Disgusted, Stimson resigned.

Carroll: “But it was the US, more than the Soviet Union, that militarized that political conflict, making it far more dangerous and costly than it needed to be.”  Later, “The founding of NATO, — made permanent the military, as opposed to political, character of the Western standoff.  Weapons — not coal, and not food either — would define the competition between East and West.

The Pentagon raised paranoia to a fine art as it applied it to the theory of the external threat.  “—– with money, influence, promotion, and prestige flowing to those who were most convincing in warning of threats.”  The House of War conveniently ignored contrary developments:

“The red army, after the war, rapidly demobilized, dropping from more than 11 million troops in 1945 to less than three million in 1947.  Moscow did not begin as the rapacious bear Americans imagined.”  In fact, its economy was also a basket case but the CIA and the news media smothered these facts.

“But the logical inconsistencies in strategic theory — the way to peace is preparation for all-out war — soon began to push policymakers, ——- into a kind of wonderland.”  Later, “The military establishment, built around a pulsing nuclear arsenal, was a nation within a nation.”

Ambrose (from his book Eisenhower): “Five times in one year his top warriors advised President Eisenhower to launch an atomic strike against China.  Five times he said no.”

Ike also commented: “I am getting desperate with the inability of the men there (defense department) to understand what can be spent on military weapons and what must be spent to wage the peace.”

The true Eisenhower showed forth in an April 16, 1953 speech as Ambrose continued: “’This world in arms is not spending money alone.  It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

“’The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than thirty cities.  It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.  It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.’

“The reception to his speech, in the Western world, was overwhelming.  The American press outdid itself in praising him; so did the British and Continental newspapers; messages from American embassies around the world reported the greatest enthusiasm ——.

Then in 1956 came the Suez crisis.  “—– (ambassador) Lodge had told the (UN) General Assembly that the US intended to introduce a resolution calling upon Israel and Egypt to cease fire, on Israel to withdraw to its original borders, ——–, and to participate in an embargo against Israel until it withdrew.

“——— Lodge phoned Eisenhower to tell him that ‘never has there been such a tremendous acclaim for the President’s policy.  Absolutely spectacular.’

“The small nations could hardly believe that America would support a Third World country, Egypt, in a struggle with colonial powers that were America’s two (including France) staunchest allies, or that the US would support Arabs against Israeli aggression.

“—– one of the great moments in UN history.  Eisenhower’s insistence on the primacy of the UN, of treaty obligations, and of the right of all nations gave America a standing in world opinion it had never before achieved.”

And today …….??  Friends, now we can see why the title of this pocket gofer is The US as a World Citizen.

Carroll seemed to bare all with this observation: “—— but the impersonal workings of a frenzied cycle in which money feeds on fear which feeds on power which feeds on violence which feeds on a skewed idea of honor which feeds on demonization of an enemy which feeds on more fear which feeds on ever more money.  Something new.  Something unstoppable.  Something dangerous.”  Unstoppable?  Stay tuned.

“As is well known by now, there was a missile gap in 1950, but it overwhelmingly favored America.  Whether Kennedy knew it or not, his missile gap pronouncements were another in the long line of phony ——- warnings that the Russians were coming.”

Finally some citizens spoke up.  “The 1962 Port Huron Statement includes sophisticated analysis of the ‘permanent war economy,’ a dissection of the way interservice rivalry was driving the arms race, a clear statement of the moral absurdity of deterrence theory ——-.”  But people associated this statement with hippiedom.

Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Carter all tried to control the monster.  Ike was the only one who did, and he was a career soldier.  (See Pocket Gofer 18.)

Even Reagan’s first shot at it flunked the pentagon’s test.  At the 1986 summit meeting with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland he proposed the total elimination of all intermediate-range ballistic missiles.  He surprised not only Gorby.  When he returned home his astounded generals squelched the whole idea.  Er, was not Reagan the commander-in-chief [Article II Section 2 of the Constitution]?

“——- overpowered any attempt to curb it, with the result that America accumulated a combined strike force of long-range bombers, land-based missiles, and nuclear-armed submarines so insanely in excess of any rational purpose that national security was reduced to a mythical obsession.”  Our immediate ancestors allowed this to happen, in part due to media-hyped fear and in part due to media-cop-out ignorance.  See PG5, where we present for discussion what we call the Press Saga.

We see here the first mention of national security.  This gimmick later became the rationale for the pentagon and career politicians in Washington to do whatever they wanted, and on our dime, of course.  Amazingly, this ruse is still in use today.

Famed Sovietologist George Kennan quoted: “—– missile upon missile, new levels of destructiveness upon old ones, helplessly, almost involuntarily, like victims of some sort of hypnotism, like men in a dream, like lemmings headed for the sea.”

Enter a man we fervently admire.  “As a reader must understand, I believe it was Gorbachev who ‘ended the cold war,’ not Reagan, and he did it with a series of unilateral acts no one could have predicted, and the significance of which few grasped at the time.”  Like Ike, Gorby had the courage to go toe-to-toe with his warriors.  See Pocket Gofer 17.

“But the pentagon threw up other objections, like so much flak.  What about INFs (missiles) based in Russia itself, still capable of hitting Europe?  What about those in the east of Russia, aimed at China but able to be pointed west?  And so on.  To each objection, Gorbachev’s ready reply was No problem, let’s get rid of them all.

But the monster trumped even him.  Back to Carroll: “The much ballyhooed ‘peace dividend’ had never come.  As the Warsaw Pact disbanded, NATO expanded.”  As we argued, this was and is ridiculous.  See PG18.

In January 2007 Gorbachev said that the 1970 NPT (Nonproliferation Treaty) committed non-nuclear nations not to develop weapons in exchange for a promise by nuke powers to eventually abolish their arsenals.

“If this reciprocity is not observed, then the entire structure of the treaty will collapse.”  During 2007 the Bush administration announced that the pentagon was working on new tactical nukes to replace aging weapons.

Carroll:“But war was threatened by global outbreaks of peace.  As I learned, particularly from the writer Jonathan Schell, something positive in the human heart had shown itself to be ‘unconquerable.’”  Later, “The army of pentagon lobbyists started looking for new ways to keep the money flowing.”

Nevertheless the pentagon announced on August 1, 1990 that it was cutting the armed forces by a quarter.  But the next day Saddam attacked Kuwait.  Carroll referred to this event as “—– the rescue of the pentagon.”

Both Gorbachev and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell pleaded and argued (respectively) with HW Bush against going to war.  Nice try.

“And freedom to prepare for the expansion of the nuclear arsenal, always under the rubric of ‘modernization,’ meant, of course, an expanding pentagon budget.  By 1998, America was spending more than $278 billion a year on the military; Russia that year spent $28 billion.

Carroll turned to a recent president.  “George W. Bush, with a sledgehammer the only tool in his bag, had brought it down on the table, aiming at the mosquito.  The mosquito got away, but the table was destroyed.”  Damn good book.

The Soviets did not trust the West.  They were scared stiff that we would appreciate our towering advantage and attack.  They knew we hated communism, especially after senator Joseph McCarthy stoked that hatred through his wild antics on television.

TV executives know that sex and violence sells.  Their antics apparently omitted Charles Adams’s observation (slightly abbreviated): “If you leave communism alone it will eventually die.  If you attack it and harass it you give it a strength that it would not otherwise possess.”  Here’s one-up on the media: we are selling this one, right here.

Therefore they closed their country to outside visits and influence.  In an attempt to frustrate what they thought was our master plan, the Russian bear growled and snarled.

The 1950s were an economic head-trip.  We put war hero “Ike” Eisenhower into the White House.  With him we enjoyed rapid growth, low inflation, and federal budget surpluses.  Ike understood the nature of the trade-off between war and preparation for war and economic growth, so he kept a firm lid on the growth of the military.

Ike cut way back on defense expenditures as he and the congress successfully balanced the budget.  The man had learned something significant since 1920.

Ike felt that budget deficits could get out of control and possibly “—– destroy what we are attempting to defend.”  He believed that this sneaky threat from within was more dangerous than the outside threat from the Soviet Union.  With the benefit of 60 years of hindsight and a $23 trillion national debt we have to admit he was right.

Ike retired in January 1961 after giving one last warning.  But within months it was back to business as usual at the pentagon.

Today we pay interest on the above debt, but get no benefits from these expenditures.  We miss Ike.  In spite of his efforts we taxpayers have splashed out more than $18 trillion since 1950 on “defense,” and today we pay more for “defense” than the rest of the NATO countries combined.  

In 2017 Rosa Brooks wrote a book that expands on Carroll’s tome.  The title is How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon.

And it is quite an expansion.  Among other astounding discoveries, this: ““Here is the basic problem: If we can’t tell whether a particular situation counts as ‘war,’ we can’t figure out which rules apply.  And if we don’t know which rules apply, we don’t know when the deliberate killing of other human beings is permitted — perhaps even required — and when killing constitutes simple murder.  We don’t know if drone strikes are lawful wartime acts, or murders.  We don’t know when it is acceptable for the US government to lock someone up indefinitely, without charge or trial, and when due process is required before detention is permissible.  We don’t know if mass government surveillance is reasonable or unjustifiable.  Ultimately, we lose our collective ability to place meaningful restraints on power and violence.” 

PERCEPTIONS: A foreign military threat can be real or imaginary.  The important point from the government’s viewpoint is that citizens perceive it as real.  (Iraq- real or imaginary?)

News media hype exerts immense influence on our perceptions.  It should not, as we cannot trust today’s news.  Reporters and editors have keen noses for violence, death, destruction, and threats of these, simply because they sell.

Pomerantsev in his book This is Not Propaganda interviewed a knowledgeable lady   about biased news media.  .  “In all the other historical examples of crimes against humanity that Mary Ana had looked into, she found the excuse that the world wasn’t aware of what was going on. 

“The Holocaust? We didn’t know (or pretended not to).  The slaughter of Bosnian Muslims by Serbs in Srebrenica?  Happened too quickly to react to.  Genocide in Rwanda?  Politicians ———- hadn’t known the extent ——–. 

“And now?  Now everyone knows everything all the time.  There’s an abundance of video and photo, eyewitness testimony, scientific analysis, SMSs, JPEGs, terabytes of data showing war crimes, communicated virtually in real time, all streamed on social media for everyone to see. 

“And yet the reaction has been inversely proportional to the sheer mass of evidence.”  People who know like Mary Ana all too frequently find their voices muzzled.  James Madison saw the necessity of a free press, but our recent ancestors did not follow up.  Today we are paying the price.  See PG5.

An excellent example occurred just after the start of Iraq War II, against an enemy without WMDD (weapons of mass death and destruction; we prefer to say it like it is) and weakened by years of wars and sanctions.  Lapham in his book Gag Rule reported as follows.

“Journalists on duty at the pentagon characterized the assault as a magnificent achievement, one of the most extraordinary military campaigns ever conducted in the history of the world, reporters traveling with the troops discovered comparisons to the glory of WWII ——-.”  This is a crock, and what a slap in the faces of aging WWII vets!

Here is an important truth about perceptions.  Different people perceive the same situation differently, and generate different conclusions.

Called selective perception by psychologists, this trait explains how much of the world came to perceive Ameerica as the world’s neighborhood bully.  It’s the same world, but our top government officials don’t perceive themselves as acting like a bully.

Over heard about 20 years ago at the United Nations headquarters in New York City: “There’s a real animosity here.  Nobody talks about America anymore.  Instead, they talk about ‘the big bully.'”

The US government has its perceptions of problem solving and justice.  Each one of the other 200 or so national governments in the UN has its perceptions.

No two perceptions are the same.  And yet the American government has for decades since World War II aggressively moved forward with a foreign policy based on its perception while largely disregarding others’ perceptions.

Combine this with Washington’s nasty habit of shipping mountains of weapons to many unstable places in the world (which guarantees continuing instability; Pocket Gofer 18).  Thinking about this, we can see why there is today so much misunderstanding and conflict in the world.

The American government has for some 70 years gone abroad and stirred up trouble in many places in the name of defending its interests.  Ours or the government’s?  Interesting question.  In a democracy the two sets of interests are the same.

The notion of selective perception has us intrigued.  To help us to see a situation through others’ eyes let’s hold up a mirror: 1) Iran sends a fleet of warships into the Gulf of Mexico; 2) Mexico agrees to provide training facilities for militants who intend to overthrow the American government; and 3) Libyan aircraft based in Cuba bomb Washington.

An old Indian chief said never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins.

Do we see the other side of the mirror? 1) The American government sent warships into the Persian Gulf; 2) It trained “contras” in Honduras to harass the government of Nicaragua; and 3) US aircraft bombed Tripoli, capital of Libya.

Richard Reeves (2/1999 column): “Since World War II, Americans have periodically deluded themselves into believing that because we have the power to disrupt normal life in most any part of the world, we therefore must have the power to stop or start ancient enmities we know little about —- and that little is often wrong.”

His observation is accurate.  However, we have a serious quibble with Mr. Reeves and the many other analysts and columnists who continue to refer to “Americans” and “we” doing these terrible things overseas.

These news media folks surely realize that it is the government and not “we” who are responsible.  However, if they reported accurately readers might see a gulf between citizens’ and government’s druthers.  See the essay “Government v Society.”

This in turn would suggest that we no longer have a democracy in this country: government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  See Pocket Gofer 16.

Had the government restricted its activities to defending our homeland instead of its interests, many of the mountains of weapons worldwide would not exist today.  We need only spend a moment imagining the situation today if every nation had spent the past 50 years defending its interests in this way.

The Soviet and western governments did this in addition to getting into a horrendously expensive arms race with one another.  Officials in both countries allowed different perceptions of the same situation to combine with the external threat gimmick (Pocket Gofer 18 and the essay) in order to bring on and maintain this foolishness.

The pentagon argues that you never know when another enemy will rise out of the mist.  But if we pursue that reasoning to its logical conclusion we will produce nothing besides weapons and highly trained soldiers.

DECEPTIONS: The end of the cold war in 1991 could have been forecasted years in advance by the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).  If officials didn’t know that the USSR was fading far in advance of public fact they were not doing their job.  We should have fired the outfit.

However, it was not in their interest to inform us about the end of our only major (perceived) enemy.  Cloak-and-dagger stuff is their bread and butter.  And bureaucrats don’t worry about the money; it’s not theirs.

The Soviet government’s preoccupation with secrecy was just what the CIA needed.  In this way the organization could go on indefinitely portraying the USSR as a terrible threat and get away with it.

After WWII hundreds of American military bases were built all over Western Europe and East Asia.  Unbelievably, many are still there, and still more on the drawing board.  This is defense of our homeland as argued by Jefferson?

General of the Army Eisenhower argued in 1951 that American support for NATO should be short-term only.  A recovering Europe could soon carry on in confronting the USSR.

As president he took the same position at home.  “I will not have anyone in Defense who wants to sell the idea of a larger and larger force in being.”

Politicians objected to his cuts.  Surely the warriors knew better than anyone else what they needed.

Ike replied that “—– he knew the Pentagon as well as any man living; he knew how ingrained was the tendency to overstate the case, to ask for more than was really necessary (from Ambrose’s book Eisenhower).”

The CIA bureaucrats may not have much else going for them, but we can’t criticize them on chutzpah.  A report stated that between 1961 and 1985 the Soviet economy grew at a robust average of 3.9 percent a year.  Actually, it peaked in 1966 at a low level and then began a long decline.

Any economist could have told us that a country that devotes 15-25 percent of its national income to the military could not possibly grow like this, due to the inevitable military-economic trade-off (the more emphasis on the military the weaker the economy).  Quite a number tried to tell us.

But when vast money and power is concentrated in Washington and politicians have kickbacks raining down upon them they can out-shout any economist.  (He/she will get no press coverage.)

The CIA failed to predict the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Yom Kippur war in 1973 and the Arab oil embargo that followed it, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the rise of the Polish Solidarity movement in 1980.

Regarding the huge and bloodless revolutions in East Europe in 1989, it missed them clean.  And then there was 9/11 and the absence of WMDD in Iraq.  Then in 2006 only 29% of CIA officers surveyed said that their incompetent associates had been removed.

Well, we might say, the CIA is not the only outfit in the sneak business.  Perhaps some other central government agency would fill in behind this one.

Then again, (Economist 3/22/97): “As well as the CIA and the FBI, America maintains 11 other intelligence agencies, which duplicate each other’s work.  There are rival groups of intelligence analysts working for the army, the navy, the air force, and the marines; on top of this the defense department has the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and two other bodies.”

Is this intelligent?  Are those who are paying for this mess intelligent?  We recall a comment by a Washington insider who said that every function of the central government is carried out by at least 20 agencies.

In late May 2010 a senate report gave details on 14 separate intelligence failures.  A new office called Director of National Intelligence was created in 2005 with orders to fix the whole mess.  It morphed into the Department of National Security.  It’s still a mess.

Accurate predictions of developing trouble spots around the world present opportunities for diplomacy to work.  This function can and does often either solve the difficulty or at least pour oil on the waters before the issue erupts into open conflict.  And it is far less expensive.  See Pocket Gofer 12.

But top government officials are not interested in diplomacy.  They would rather allow open conflict, because it pays so much better.  World peace would mean shutting down a military-industrial complex that almost daily showers our money on career congressmen needing re-election campaign funds.

WEAPONS AND A PERSONAL POWER TRIP: Now we are entering a new era, where information and knowledge are power.  While we still see that violence and wealth cannot exist together, we are realizing that wealth and knowledge can co-exist.  In fact, they can and do build on one another, but only in the absence of destructive violence.

In his book Power Shift Alvin Toffler classified power in a useful way.  Violence is low-quality power, because it always generates resentment, hatred, and desire for revenge.  Only the stick applies to motivate people.

Wealth is medium-quality power, because possessors can use both the carrot and the stick.  It can be presented to people as a reward for a good job done, and as a threat of denial for a poor one.

Wise use of knowledge is high-quality power, especially when wisdom is directed toward enabling individuals to improve their lives.  It is also diffused power.  This is important.

Many of our problems today can be traced to concentration of wealth and personal power in Washington.  We define personal power seeking as a selfish and therefore unwise use of wealth and knowledge (Pocket Gofer 13).  Friends, we have here an excellent example of the good and bad sides of human nature.

The men who compiled the Constitution were deeply concerned about concentration of personal power, so they specifically provided for its dispersion.  However, in the 230 or so years since then we have not been so concerned.  Indifference can be expensive (Pocket Gofer 7).

In 1948 Einstein believed the pursuit of national security through national armaments was a dangerous delusion.  That was about the time when British prime minister Churchill suggested that nuclear weapons make war impossible.

Today many more of the world’s top officials know nukes will never be used in anger.  But this truth makes poor copy and it would calm citizens’ fears.  These officials want to maintain their citizens in a state of fear and dependency.  This keeps top-down governments alive world-wide.

So, what have we been doing in the 72 years since 1948?  What have our leaders done for us?  During that time period the world has blown more than $40 trillion on wars and preparation for more wars.

In the early 1960s the British still had many overseas military bases.  They decided they were stretched too thin, and so they closed nearly all of them.

The same applies to America.  Maintaining thousands of installations both at home and overseas is a terrible cash drain, just when our national budget deficits are adding to our $23 trillion (and counting) national debt.

General after general argued that our armed forces are stretched too thin.  The recent Baker-Hamilton ISG (Iraq Study Group) report suggested a diplomatic solution to a war that no one can win.  The Texas gunslinger (GW Bush) ignored these arguments.

Uh, what say the citizens?  Journalists really ought to ask.  Some of them are asking.

A December Gallup poll: among those familiar with the ISG five of six wanted its suggestions implemented.  Bush also ignored this result.

Several of George Washington’s generals approached the newly inaugurated president and suggested that he assume the mantle of a king.  They would support him.  He immediately pitched them out of his office.  (The dummies should have known who was the boss.)

The total of our money sought annually today for “defense” comes to about $800 billion.  Friends, the external threat is alive, well, and typically getting more expensive.  Just like many of us, President Bush’s body fed testosterone to his brain and he craved personal power.  (Apparently it missed his heart.)

Congressmen have been known to outdo even the pentagon in the war-mongering department.  The B-2 “stealth” bomber runs $2 billion a copy and has many problems in its operation.

The Air Force had 21 of these airplanes in 1997 (David Broder in a 9/1997 column).  “The lovers of high-tech weaponry in both parties are pressing hard to start work on nine more Stealths. —— would cost $27 billion to build and operate over the next two decades.

“The pentagon’s civilian and uniformed chiefs say that money could be better spent elsewhere.  Defense secretary ——- recommend a presidential veto ——.  But that has not deterred the majority of House republicans, joined by —— Democrats, from insisting on buying more B-2s.”

It’s the money, honey.  The military didn’t want these horribly expensive killing machines.  It wanted boots on the ground.  But the potential for kickbacks from defense contractors had (and still has) nearly every career congressman salivating.  See PG3.

We think they can build as many as they like; just don’t do it with our money and don’t kill any innocent civilians.  We never have appreciated the use of our money to build weapons that kill civilians.

As he retired from public life Ike warned every citizen to keep informed, because “It is only a citizenry, an alert and informed citizenry which can keep these abuses from coming about.”  Abuses by huge defense contractors and their lackeys in the congress could come about “—– unwittingly, but just by the very nature of the thing.”

Friends, Ike understood human nature.  The unavoidable lesson is, we must keep informed and shape public officials to our will.  This is democracy; see PG20.

As we write we are beginning to notice a trend in the news media away from its modern role as a government public relations machine and toward spreading truth.  We find this encouraging, but much improvement remains.

THE SITUATION TODAY AS THE GOVERNMENT PERCEIVES IT

The cold war is over, but government officials remain stuck in what is called a “geopolitical” mentality.  This means they think in terms of flexing our muscles in various parts of the world whenever they perceive a threat to their interests.  We personalize this mentality as “cold war dinosaurs.”  We shall hear about this later.

It also means they practically never wait until a country requests their “assistance.”  Rather they just wait till a fight starts and then charge in there with guns blazing and solve the problem on their own terms.  Not to wonder why so many foreigners call the American government a bully.

Because violence causes more violence, this strategy keeps things stirred up.  It’s great for the weapons business.

BALANCE OF POWER MYTH: Our warriors distribute weapons wisely (in their perception) to ensure a balance of power in every region of the world, especially the unstable ones.  Beginning around 1948 the Middle East became unstable as the oil exploration business grew rapidly and Israel was established.  The first Arab-Israeli war started in that year.

After World War II weapons factories in America needed customers, and suddenly there they were.  The pentagon shipped millions of tons of killing machines into the region in order to preserve a balance of power.

Government officials defined a balance of power in their terms, of course.  Don’t they know what is best for everyone?

We had better brace ourselves, because we are about to use different peoples’ perceptions to prove that there is no such thing as a balance of power.  That is, a balance from the US government’s perception is vastly different from a balance as perceived by heads of Arab nations.

Friends, this is the stuff of arms races.  Government officials of Arab oil countries saw little Israel with its big friend.  They watched as Israel forcibly occupied much of the Palestinians’ homeland in 1967, and began collecting nuclear weapons.

Arab officials placed huge orders for the most sophisticated killing machines available, largely because they knew Israel had them.  What they didn’t know was when Israel and its big benefactor would stop.  What they perceived as unacceptable offensive action, Israelis perceived as fighting for their survival.

Each new batch of weapons intended to restore a balance of power on one side upsets the balance of power as seen by the other side.  End of proof.

A PENTAGON-DRIVEN FOREIGN POLICY: Russia-expert George Kennan proposed that this policy be determined by a council of wise citizens, not elected politicians.  But top officials continued to rely on think-tank wonks and other analysts who catered to their political masters.

The Economist (8/2006 article) explained why.  “Pro-Israeli forces command the intellectual high ground as well as the corridors of power.”  By now a thinking citizen has probably guessed why: $$$$$$.

“AIPAC (America-Israel Political Action Committee) which has an annual budget of almost $50 million, a staff of 200, 100,000 grassroots members and a decades-long history of wielding influence, is arguably the most powerful lobby in Washington.

The Economist reported on a 2005 survey: 42% of Americans strongly agreed that sometimes war is necessary to obtain justice.  But just 11% of Europeans strongly agreed.

Europeans know their history: 500 years of nearly continuous conflict with all the death, destruction and misery that went with this.  Most if not all of those wars were fought in the name of justice.

The pentagon is hot for hanging tough economic sanctions on Iran in order to get it to stop (presumably) developing nukes.  The other big four members of the UN Security Council (Russia, Britain, France, China) are saying “Hold it!”

Companies in these nations have huge trade agreements with Iran, which would be disrupted.  Back in 1979 the US put a trade embargo on Iran, so without business ties it has little to lose by imposing sanctions.

In 2015 President Obama combined with five other concerned countries to cut a deal with Iran which would delay its nuke program and lead eventually to end it.  But Trump took America out of it without even the courtesy of informing the other participants.

Price (News & Observer 11/2009) has comments worthy of note.  NATO (read “mostly US”) is trying to train Afghan police because this is vital to planning an exit strategy.

These men are not just illiterate.  They steal and extort bribes at every opportunity.  We have a few bent cops in this country, but this goes way beyond our problem.

Price: “—— Washington plans to throw away more than $10 billion in development aid.  ——- intended to build roads, schools, ——– win favor among Afghans.  But that’s not the way it is working out.

“Add endemic corruption ——– little doubt that the money will be wasted.  ——————-.  ——– school building falls down, a road crumbles.  Only then do development officers learn that Afghan contractors ‘flipped’ the construction contract, sold it to another builder after taking a 10 percent cut —-.

“The buyer then flipped it again, and perhaps again, leaving so little money ——– soon collapses.  ————.  When villagers welcome ——- officers into their town to build —–as soon as the foreigners leave the Taliban return.

Just when we came to believe the situation could not get any crazier, Nordland (News & Observer 3/2010) reported that US and NATO commanders are “arguing against opium eradication, pitting them against some Afghan officials who are pushing to destroy the harvest.”  This position is intended to win hearts and minds in Marjah, a recent NATO military objective.

“—— said Zalmai Afzali, the spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Counter-narcotics.  ‘The Taliban are the ones who profit from opium, so you are letting your enemy get financed by this so he can turn around and kill you back,’ ——.'”

Oppel (N&O 4/2010) took this one a step further.  “—— marines have flooded Marjah with hundreds of thousands of dollars a week.  ——- win over wary locals by paying them compensation for property damage ———.”

But the Taliban “———- killing or beating some who take the marines’ money, or pocketing it themselves.  ————.  Col. Ghulam Sakhi, —- at least 30 Taliban have come to one marine outpost to take money from the marines as compensation —-.

“They have the same clothes, and the same style.  And they are using the money against the marines.  They are buying IEDs ——.”

What must ordinary American fighters be thinking?  Friends, we are paying for a mass tragedy.  An old saying among traveling salesmen says: “You gotta know the territory.”

The Economist (1/2010): Afghans believe that corruption outranks security and unemployment as the nation’s worst problem.  But in 2/2010 President Karzai refused to go along with a US plan to use a parliamentary recess to pass an anti-corruption decree.

In 4/2010 Mr. Karzai blew his cool, accusing NATO of “massive fraud” during last year’s presidential election campaign.  He said if the allies further harass him he would “join the Taliban.”  Later, having presumably calmed down, he said he meant every word.

A 10/2010 report showed that the Taliban have during the previous five years got stronger, not weaker.  No one believes it can be defeated.

A short while later he presumably moved to reform the election system.  Maybe so, but in view of his previous behavior it is tempting to believe he is not sincere.  If the result is more smoke and mirrors he may have learned from the US government how to give appearances while making no real changes.  (The same government has had decades of practice doing this to us citizens.)

The kicker here is that America had no choice but to depend on Karzai, who has little commitment to getting rid of the insurgents.  He and his lieutenants are, above all, personal power seekers and holders.  See Pocket Gofer 13.

The Economist continued: “—- January 18th when teams of Afghan fighters —– slipped through concentric rings of checkpoints and brought mayhem to the center of Kabul.  ——————.  It raises questions about the recent claim by General Stanley McChrystal, —– that ‘the tide is turning’ ———-.”

In February 2010 the US mounted a major offensive in Helmand province.  President Karzai warned against killing civilians.  Nevertheless a couple of errant rockets hit a house.

And more (Economist 2/27): “—— NATO air strikes killed as many as 27 civilians, ——.  ————-.  General McChrystal went on national TV —– apology —.  Few Afghans were in a forgiving mood, however, having already heard so many foreign generals promise to stop killing civilians.”

This is a poor way to win hearts and minds.  We wanted to see President Obama display the leadership he showed in the health reform campaign: bite the bullet and get out of Afghanistan.  Well …….

We noted that President Obama was slowly removing troops from Iraq even tho the country remains in turmoil.  He is sending at least some of them to Afghanistan.

This raises a question: Will the number of overstretched and tired troops so redeployed equal the attrition among other NATO troops in Afghanistan?

The government of the Netherlands just suffered a crisis while discussing this subject.  It looks very much like its 2,000 troops will leave at the end of the year.  Others may see this development and follow.  Was Obama pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it?

The Afghans threw the British out during the 19^th century.  They threw out the Soviet Russians in the 2oth, and now they are throwing out the Americans.  Those who do not or cannot learned from history are surely doomed to repeat it.  And on our dime; WOW!

It is interesting to observe a sudden increase during 2007 in retirements among top American officers in Iraq.  We are also seeing an increase in the numbers of West Point and Annapolis graduates serving their required five years and then leaving the military.

One of these castigated the Bush administration for failure to learn from Vietnam.  He also said the US should not fight insurgencies, but rather emphasize better diplomacy.  Did President Obama wake up and smell the coffee?  Well …….

Prominent columnist George Will in June 2010: “Those Americans who say Afghanistan is a test of America’s ‘staying power’ are saying we must stay there because we are there.  This —— treats perseverance as a virtue regardless of context or consequences,  and makes futility into a reason for persevering.”  This is as good a place as any — see our essay on “The Futility of War.”

A June 2010 survey in 120 Afghan districts found that a third of their citizens backed the insurgents.  These folks probably figure they will come out of this fiasco on top.

Zucchino (News & Observer 9/5/2010: “As American combat deaths have reached record levels this summer, public support is ending for the 9-year-old conflict.  Several recent opinion polls found that more than half —– oppose the war, —.  We had thought majority rule was part of democracy.  Now it is 2020.  This should give one pause ……

The Economist commented on the strategies of America vs China.  “—— China’s overbearing behavior in its neighborhood is an opportunity for America to strengthen old bonds with such allies as Japan and South Korea, and to forge new ties with ASEAN nations that want an alternative to Chinese regional hegemony.” 

The writer might have complemented his/her remarks by reference to American hegemony in China’s backyard.  “And give China credit for restricting this activity to its own backyard; the US acts in an overbearing manner far from its shores, and has few quibbles about sending weapons, warships and soldiers thence. 

The bully is prepared to strike.  Jefferson said the presence of weapons and soldiers in peacetime causes in top officials a temptation to use them whenever an issue, however slight, crops up.

China’s Belt-and-Road Initiative (BRI) is spreading billions over much of the economic world because President Xi realizes that China’s economy will do still better thru active international trade and investment than it could without good trading partners.

China is following the 1947 American example; its Marshall Plan emphasized economic development to rebuild devastated countries after a horrendous war.  Planners knew we would need healthy trading partners; ditto China today.  BRI is a huge group of projects; President Xi is preoccupied with it.

Furthermore no one wanted more war.  Time machine ahead to today: the pentagon has us involved in two debilitating wars that weaken our economy.  At the same time China is strengthening its economy.

PERSONAL FREEDOM VS SECURITY: In 8/2002 the Economist published two articles that we think capably describe this trade-off in our country.  One is titled “A Needless Victory for Terror.”

“’We have entered a new type of war.  It’s a war against people who hate freedom —–.’  ——–.  George Bush was no doubt sincere when he spoke those words, a few days after the dreadful attacks of September 11^th, 2001.

“But if truth is always the first casualty of war and patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then freedom ends up somewhere in between: a noble cause that somehow suffers collateral damage in the pursuit of the real objective, be that national security or dictatorial vanity.”

Like millions of us, we watched that speech.  Perhaps not like millions of us, we watched Bush’s chest swell as he rattled the sabers of war.

A terrible crime had indeed been committed; all would certainly agree.  But with all crimes the general procedure is to find those responsible and punish them.  But Bush declared a war (the Constitution says only the congress has this power).

Today the tragedy is 19 years back.  There has been ample time for passions to cool and reason to assume a leadership role, which means finding the criminals who are still alive.  See PG17.

But with media hype assisting him Bush waged two wars.  Career politicians feed on passions, not reason.

Vietnam vet and late Senator John McCain was a strong supporter of the Iraq war in 2003.  Since then reason has caused a rethink: “This is the first time that I have seen a parallel to Vietnam, in terms of information that the administration is putting out versus the actual situation on the ground.”

White House: “The plan is on course.”  Economist (7/2005): “But it would take an ostrich not to notice the gap between the official optimism in Washington and the military and political facts on the ground.”

In wartime the public must not know the truth.  For the warmongers this is extremely important, and the Texas gunslinger was no exception.

This is why Donald Rumsfeld insisted on controlling info available to the media.  “Embedding” journalists among American troops was a gimmick to distract citizens’ thinking from this reality.

Nick Allen wrote a book called Embed: With the World’s Armies in Afghanistan.  “—- reporters, constrained by rules imposed by their protectors, and often admiring of them, will produce biased accounts.  That is after all what Mr. Rumsfeld wanted.”

If America had a foreign policy that was compassionate and democratic there would have been no 9/11.  Hmm.  Did not a campaigning George Bush preach “compassionate conservatism?”

Furthermore, we watched hours of the first anniversary on the tube.  There was no mention of the fact that more innocent civilians in Afghanistan were killed by American bombs during the previous year (including a wedding obliterated) than the total killed in NYC, PA and the Pentagon on 9/11.

Planning the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon took two years and involved maybe 300-400 people.  The entire gigantic security bureaucracy was apparently caught totally unaware of the plot.

But maybe not.  We recall that in 2000 Bush did not get as many popular votes as did Gore and he “won” the presidency only after a long series of questionable recounts of Florida votes.

He slid into the office thru the back door and without a public mandate.  Therefore Bush desperately needed something to unite the people behind him.

Time machine backward to 1941.  President Roosevelt was extremely frustrated because after eight years his massive and expensive social programs had failed to pry the economy loose from the Great Depression.

After trying for many years to pry information loose from the government, in 2005 Robert Stinnett wrote Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor.  In this book he proved beyond doubt that Roosevelt knew in advance about the attack but kept silent as 2300 sailors died and the Pacific Fleet was nearly destroyed.

Why did he do this?  A 9/1941 poll showed that 88% of US citizens were against joining WWII.  FDR counted on a furious popular reaction to Pearl Harbor, and he was right.

Time machine ahead to 9/11/01 and Isaac Asimov’s comment: “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”  Hmm.

Al-Qaeda and other “terrorist” outfits have been organized into completely separate cells in a way similar to democracy: dispersing power outward.  A cell can be found only with great difficulty in areas of the world where dislike of the US encourages citizens to protect such cells.

Today there are many such areas.  One of these is a spot in NW Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was eventually found nine years after Bush wanted him “dead or alive.”

Pakistan’s government surely likes the billions in taxpayer aid that keeps coming at it.  Of course that aid comes with strings: do this and that to help in the Afghanistan fiasco.

But Pakistan’s army is reluctant to go after Taliban hiding just on its side of the border with Afghanistan.  Generals want to ensure the cooperation of allies after the US leaves.

But for every cell found and crushed, two more will spring up somewhere else.  All a central command needs to do is provide some money, and moving that stuff around secretly via mouse clicks is a piece of cake.  Amereica can torture all it can get away with, but a captured member of one cell truly has no knowledge of any other cell.  Yep, you gotta know the territory.

Politicians figure they must be seen to be doing something.  “Some actions, however, are worse than inaction.  If every act of terrorism is met by a tightening of security and a concomitant loss of freedom, governments will be giving terrorists an automatic victory with every new outrage.” 

If outright war is not feasible just do terrorism.  This tactic is but one of many that are used to strike fear in us peasants’ hearts.  Ergo, these events in effect work with existing government as guided by the age-old external threat gimmick.

The Economist referred to Bush’s “war on terror” speech.  “Talk of war conjures up the need for the suspension of normal political life and even of civil liberties.

“That is bad enough in a war of the conventional kind.  But this war, if war it is, may go on forever.”

For an egotistical dictator, this is the ideal situation.  The following is just a beginning.

“First is the administration’s attempt to circumvent the law.  ‘Bush, Ashcroft —— ran roughshod over the Bill of Rights,’ says the Cato Institute, —– echoed by other watchdogs.

“—— Bush’s order authorizing military commissions to try suspected terrorists.  Critics are appalled —— gives the president the unfettered discretion to select those who will be tried by military tribunal.  He will also be the ultimate decision-maker in any appeal.

“The Cato report accuses the administration of ‘supporting measures antithetical to freedom, such as secretive subpoenas, secretive arrests, secretive trials, and secretive deportations.’

“—– eager to start TIPS, a Terrorism Information and Prevention System in which millions of citizens will be asked to spy upon one another ——-.”  Bush apparently imported the Soviet Russian KGB.

Lapham (his book Gag Rule): “The Terrorism Enterprise Investigations guidelines grant the FBI license to commit crimes when and if the circumstances warrant an especially strong defense of the public safety ——.”  This means the end of Rule of Law (absolutely no one is above the law), which is a fundamental component of democracy.

Friends, it is easy to see how this campaign to “defend our freedoms” can morph into a police state, which Pocket Gofer 19 demonstrates is the hidden goal of the elite class in Washington.  Each of us should grab this gofer, buttonhole a neighbor, and think this one thru together.

Lapham emphasized this point: “President Bush liked to tell his —— audiences that, as Americans, ‘we refuse to live in fear,’ and of all lies told by the government’s faith healers and gun salesmen, I know of none so cowardly.

“Where else does the Bush administration ask the American people to live except in fear?  On what other grounds does it justify its destruction of the nation’s civil liberties?”  See our essay on the “External Threat Gimmick.”

Older folks among us can remember Joseph McCarthy’s TV antics and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover ordering his agents to infiltrate and spy on many civil rights, anti-war, and women’s rights groups in the 1960s.  Dirty tricks included breaking into homes, planting wiretaps, and sending anonymous letters to spouses or bosses.

Well, the FBI got fried.  Will the outfit get reamed today?  No.  We cannot rest easily because human nature urges people in positions of power to constantly nibble away at our freedoms.  Even after Edward Snowden’s expose, the NIS continues its snooping.

Doubters need only open their eyes and think a bit: Today they are at it again, operating behind the lingering smoke of 9/11.  As Ike warned, the real enemy lies within.

Ben Franklin ca. 1787: Those who sacrifice freedom for security shall have neither.”

POLICEMAN: The really intriguing aspect about the whole situation lies in the numbers of people and writers in powerful positions who persist in believing that the US is the world’s only superpower, so it must therefore be a globocop.  These are the same folks who fatten themselves by flogging the balance of power myth, and they can’t be trusted beyond the period at the end of this sentence.

In 1999 the American government voted against ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is intended to restrain further development of nukes.  Officials argued that it is imperfect.  Even the country’s allies were astounded.

Prestowitz in his book Rogue Nation ticked off rejections by the government of: Landmine Bay Treaty, UN Conference on Trade in Small Arms, Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, protocol to strengthen the 1987 Convention Against Torture, and the International Criminal Court.

But this was not enough.  Bush also canceled the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  We guess these actions qualified the man as a full-fledged professional war monger.

The Economist (10/1999): “—– America’s first interest is that the world should be stable, increasingly democratic, and at peace.  —————–.  So how is peace best achieved?  Some, —— argue that the best strategy is sheer military pre-eminence.”

And who has the warhorses to be the globocop?  But only a glance at world history leads to the conclusion that this strategy goes backward, to the era of conquest and plunder.  Kings organized armies, fought, captured wealth, brought it home, and blew it on more war in a never-ending cycle of death and destruction.

So why on earth pursue such a lunatic strategy?  We guessed it; it’s the money/ours/right now/next election.  Posterity does not vote until after the polls have closed, and career politicians are comfortably retired with obese taxpayer-financed pensions.

Has anyone asked us citizens for an opinion on this issue?  Seems appropriate; in a democracy citizens should be consulted.

As a matter of fact, we were.  A survey showed that 71 percent of us believe the US plays the role of world policeman too frequently.

The reality is that we can’t afford it, and it also reinforces the neighborhood bully perception around the world.  This is why Saddam emerged from the Middle East fiasco in 1991 as a hero, and why the popular thinking in that region of the world says that he won the “war.”

This doesn’t compute.  When will the warriors wake up and smell the coffee?

A career politician does not perceive this situation as ridiculous.  But we do, and we’re paying most of the bills.

Soviet Russia cut its military spending by 80 percent.  Under elder President Bush the US planned to cut by less than 4 percent through 1997.

Then, get this, the long-range plan called for an increase for beyond 1997.  We can be forgiven if we suspect the military-industrial complex has a direct pipeline into the White House and Congress (Pocket Gofer 7) and an indirect pipeline into our wallets.

The whole idea here is to make a few token cuts in order to calm us taxpayers.  Once the heat has cooled they will pour it on again.  Then it will again be business as usual for the monster that government created during WWII and our grandparents forgot to cage.

The haze that we see overhead may be Eisenhower’s ghost.

Just as we predicted in 1997, public officials have poured it on.  Today the US spends more on “defense” than its ten biggest imaginary potential enemies combined.  If the budget were cut in half it would still be 4-5 times bigger than the next “strongest” nation, friend or foe.

The predictable result has top officials in many nations perceiving a huge external threat and scrambling to acquire as many nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction as they can glom onto.

But these cats promised not to do this?  So did politicians in this country.

The New York Times examined this stance and compared the new plan to the action of a rogue state.  It surely is getting harder for an ordinary bloke to remain happy with what the government is doing with his/her money.

Lots of countries have a score to settle: Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Cuba, Panama, etc. etc.  We see a self-fulfilling prophesy in the making.

Human nature suggests that a bully feels inadequate inside, so he overcompensates.  We once had a young man in charge of a field crew who stood six feet five and weighed 250.

About a third of him was mouth.  Because no one could shut him up long enough to tell him something he couldn’t listen and was untrainable.

We couldn’t even tell him that God must have had a reason when He gave each of us two ears and only one mouth.  Can such a problem occur between nations?

Javier Perez de Cuellar was secretary-general of the UN.  In January 1991 he made a special trip to talk with Saddam Hussein.  He told him that the resolutions leading to the war were not his decisions.

Saddam: “What America wants at present is the thing that is passed; and not what the Security Council wants.”  Perez: “I agree with you.”

The UN was established 75 years ago in the interest of world peace.  Given a chance, that organization would have sought a peaceful solution to the Gulf problem, as it is not in the war business.  But the bully bullied the UN first, then Iraq.

And then again beginning in 2003.  Young Bush would not listen.  Too much mouth, we might say.

Years later a former US official in Iraq wrote in the Washington Post, the policy ——- following the 2008 Sunni awakening was to place faith in Maliki to build an inclusive system rather than use American influence ——-.  ———- Obama administration was repeating that mistake again by sending US advisers and equipment to shore up the Iraqi military and considering US military force against Sunnis inside Iraq.  He urged the US to stay out of the conflict.”  Now it is 2020  With benefit of hindsight, sound advice: there was and is no military solution.

American citizen Frank Reed was released after 44 months as a hostage.  When questioned about sensitivities in the Middle East, Reed could not understand why anyone who opposes Israel is automatically labeled a terrorist.

An Arab perceives it as the reverse: Israelis are the terrorists.  Differential perception strikes again.

The West perceives terrorism as done by crazies.  Terrorists in the Middle East are perceived as heroes or martyrs, struggling to right one of the most massive and insensitive wrongs in the annals of history.

Economist: “The 5,000 (US soldiers) —— in Kuwait, for example, have access to stocks that could equip a combat force several times that size.  A similar number of American troops man the Prince Sultan airbase near Riyadh, a fancy facility the size of the entire Kingdom of Bahrain —– which itself houses American airbases, as well as the headquarters of America’s 5^th fleet.  Another great stash of American weaponry sits in Qatar ——.”

Mountains of weapons this high are sure to keep the Middle East unstable for years to come, simply because when they are handy and things get tense they will be used.  And this use only stirs up more violence.

An International Criminal Court (ICC) has been established to prosecute renegades who commit war crimes.  Even tho about 75 countries ratified the treaty, the American government fought it tooth and nail.

Officials think that US soldiers could easily be prosecuted under the treaty as they go over much of the world a-shootin’.  Specifically, some might be punished for political and not legal reasons.

But we think this says something serious about American foreign policy.  When there is a bully in the neighborhood, everybody wants a shot at him.

The Economist on the ICC (10/1999): “Its frequent denunciations of war crimes and other atrocities abroad, and its promotion of internationally enforceable rules in trade and arms control are based on the assumption that absolute claims to sovereignty are no longer legitimate or useful.

“Judged in this context, America’s opposition to an international court is not only hypocritical, but misconceived.  Even a superpower would be safer in a world where the rule of international law stood some chance of being applied.”

Now a group of civil rights organizations has formally asked Germany’s federal prosecutor to investigate Donald Rumsfeld and several other luminaries on suspicion of war crimes.  The focus is on torturing at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

THE INTERNATIONAL WEAPONS TRADE: Came the end of the cold war.  Well, we think it has ended, but it is hard to conclude this as we watch the sleazy business of international trafficking in weapons continue to grow as if nothing significant happened in the world some 27 years ago (Pocket Gofer 18).

“Defense” contractors apparently just want to help our friends defend themselves.  Surely nothing wrong with that.

Small problem with the pentagon: they are cutting back on their orders.  So, let’s make sure our friends overseas have plenty of killing machines.  Here’s more.

Like any capitalist, huge defense contractors love money.  We wonder if their products are causing more death and human misery than is the drug trade.  Hard to say, as drugs are right here at home with our kids, and the news media downplay the killing overseas.

In 11/2010 defense budgets were being squeezed just like others, so contractors tried new tricks to protect their ample profits (Economist).  “Some big programs are still going strong.  The F-35 multi-role fighter jet is worth over $380 billion in America ——.”

We and many others have called this project a horrendous waste of money; fighter planes are no longer used in warfare.  Maybe they will be sold to governments of poor countries, who prefer ego-boosting killing machines to building schools and hospitals.

Our government’s role as the world’s biggest international arms trafficker (it now has close to 70 percent of the world market) has gradually come to be accepted.  Few seem to question it anymore.

We would like to weigh in with those few.  We would like it better if we could change the few to many.

Millions shouldn’t die and children maimed so that a few fat cats can grow fatter.  There is a better way to control world population growth.  Recall the beginning of this pocket gofer.

The bloated military-industrial complex also fattens by working both sides of the street.  During the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq it made megabucks supplying both sides.  Also with Arab countries and Israel, and Pakistan and India.

The convenient reason is preserving a balance of power.  Friends, this is hawgwash.

After Gulf war I, the pentagon sold $8.6 billion of weapons abroad, mostly to Saudi Arabia.  Then in 1992 elder Bush wanted to sell the Saudis 72 advanced F-15 fighter-bombers, while simultaneously preaching arms reduction.

Inconsistent?  Not hardly.  In 1992 he was a politician on the campaign trail.

Those fighter planes meant jobs for thousands of McDonnell-Douglas employees.  They also meant something much more important for Bush: votes.

Politicians seldom worry about inconsistencies.  Such worries might get in the way of really high priority concerns.

The effect was trading guns for oil.  Not a good idea, in that such trafficking makes the region more unstable and therefore oil less accessible.

William Greider in his book Fortress America: “When the cold war ended, America did not demobilize, as it had after previous great conflicts. ——–.  America remains supremely ready for war.

“No one in authority dares question this, and the public does not ask; to what end?”

Including inflation, what the government is already spending will soon exceed that of 30 years ago, when the Soviet Union was still snarling at America.

Damn!  We are part of the public, so we are asking here and now: FOR WHAT?

Today our government continues its huge war-making business, shipping guns all over the world in the name of a balance of power leading to peace.  Then some of our illustrious elected officials try to tell citizens in the inner cities that guns are a no-no, that they cause conflict and killing.  We suppose that’s show bizz in politics.

The pentagon claims it ships arms only to friends, while those dirty Chinese, Russians, and French sell everywhere and thus fuel the arms race.  (They say the French will sell weapons to the devil himself if the price is right.)

Iraq was our friend once.  In fact, our government sold weapons to Saddam before he moved his troops into Kuwait.  Some of these killed our soldiers, but this fact was kept under wraps.

In August 1990 Secretary of State Baker admitted that pouring weapons into unstable regions only fueled conflict.  The situation is just like in our inner cities.

If there is a weapon handy an angry young man will not duke it out with another.  He will waste him.

There is an important message here for us: CONFLICT DOES NOT DRIVE ARMS SALES.  RATHER IT IS THE REVERSE.  Jefferson saw this truth.

In June 2000 President Clinton did some more thinking about the National Missile Defense (NMD), or star wars.  It was an election year and his buddy Al Gore needed some political cover, because republicans were sure to get on him as soft on defense.

So Clinton reversed a 17-year Democratic Party tradition of opposition to star wars, and traveled through Europe pushing the ridiculous project.  Well, Bill had always operated under a longer tradition: love of money, regardless of wherever it came from.

And dollars vote in this country.  The reality is there are far more of them voting than there are citizens.  See PG7.

Top leaders the world over have argued strenuously that NMD will surely hype the arms race.  Something near $100 billion has been blown on the project, and to date nothing has worked.

NATO AFTER THE COLD WAR: We recall that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1947 for one purpose: to defend Western Europe from attack by Stalin’s Soviet Union.  But when the USSR died in 1991 NATO did not.

It kept on going and growing just like practically every other bureaucracy (Pocket Gofers 2 and 3).  The bureaucratic mentality is a direct outgrowth of human nature.

Jefferson: “Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe.”

Jack Matlock was ambassador to Russia (4/1999 column): “The negative reaction in Russia to NATO’s attack (on Kosovo) was predictable.  After all, we had assured Russia during the debate on NATO enlargement that there was nothing to fear.

“NATO, we said, was a purely defensive alliance, constitutionally incapable of taking offensive military action.  (We had earlier given Mikhail Gorbachev to understand that NATO’s borders would not be moved further east if Germany were allowed to unite and stay in NATO.)”

When the West reneged on its promises the Russians did not appreciate it.  In May 2008 Dmitry Rogozin was Russian ambassador to NATO.

“We made peace with our neighbor.  Then he says, ‘Is it all right if I use your garage?’  Then he says, ‘Is it a problem if my friend lives at your place?’  Then he says, ‘Do you mind if I sleep with your wife?’  When we protest, we are told we have no right of veto.”

The man has a point.  Russians were our allies during the horror of WWII.  They bore the brunt of the war, losing 20 million young men.  Now that Russia has practically eliminated communism the least we can do is eliminate NATO and reach out to its people in friendship.

Friends, we can learn a lot from looking into perceptions.  In this instance, what the West perceived as a threat from the East which required assembling hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of soldiers and weapons was perceived by the Soviets as just as terrible a threat from the West.

So, what could they do?  The same; this is obvious when we think about it.

What if a NATO dominated by America replaces the United Nations?  The former was formed to prepare for war and wage it against the USSR if necessary.  The latter was formed in 1945 to reduce international tensions and keep the peace.

The former fits well into the era of conquest and plunder.  The latter fits the Age of Reason.  Expand NATO, and we are going the wrong way.

Roy Gutman in a 3/1999 column: “When the US and its allies began dropping bombs and missiles in Yugoslavia, NATO, not the UN Security Council, gave the authorization.  The UN Charter — the fundamental document regulating international peace and security — went unmentioned.”

This is just as understandable as it is unpardonable: Two veto-holding and key members of the UN Security Council did not approve the waging of war in Kosovo.  (Eighty percent of the Security Council voted against the current war in Iraq.)

So the bully went to NATO, and twisted arms to gain approval for an operation that turned its charter 180 degrees.  Moreover, no one was fooled.  It was an American government war with NATO dragging along behind.

Top US politicians loved it, for at least four reasons.  One, it reinforced their macho credentials come the next election.

Two, all those bombs and missiles being destroyed while destroying a sovereign country and killing thousands of its innocent inhabitants would need to be replaced.  This would mean lots of jobs, money, and votes.

Three, members of the congress could use this need to force the bureaucrats in the “defense” department to agree with them on spending billions and billions more taxpayer money on weapons.  The pentagon wanted to spend more money on recruiting and training soldiers (which is what Bush said we needed more).

But congressmen see far more potential in weapons for kickback money to pour into their re-election campaign coffers.  The result? We had two wars on our hands, and reserves being pulled from their civilian jobs and families to fight, kill, and die.

Four, nothing like a war to distract the public from another dumb, embarrassing thing the president did.  He can rely on the news media to cooperate; nothing like the drama of warfare to sell more newspapers and keep people glued to the tube.

Seems to us like someone should mention here the thousands of innocent people killed and maimed, plus the destruction of property that will require billions of dollar equivalents and decades to rebuild.  So we’ll mention it, right here.

We wonder if some of the same defense contractors who made the weapons get work rebuilding what their weapons destroyed.  Yep, surely is great for business.

A fall 2002 summit conference decided to transform NATO into a “go anywhere” war machine.  Combine this news with Bush’s stated “pre-emptive” strategy for dealing with terrorists, and citizens throughout the world had better duck for cover to avoid being obliterated by world history’s most gigantic loose cannon.

And now it will be a mobile armed force that will travel all over the world killing and maiming innocent civilians and destroying billions in property.  You can’t build an economy with armies and weapons; they are trained and designed only to destroy.

Friends, these NATO blokes would never do this unless they were convinced they could get away with it.  If star wars does not fire up the arms race again, surely this outfit will.  Are we going to let them do it?

Just maybe the stale, bloated bureaucracy will fall on its own sword.  Economist 10/20/07 on Afghanistan: “——- NATO itself is looking shaky.  ——-.  This year, with casualties higher than in 2006, ——- no longer to increase its strength but to stop some allies from withdrawing altogether.”

Recall that after 500 years Europeans have had it with war.  It is hard to keep together a fighting force when nobody wants to fight.  Reminds us of 1960s protesters: “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came.”

On January 31, 2008 a bunch or reports came forth.  Each argued that Afghanistan was becoming a humanitarian disaster and failed state.

PERCEPTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES: Robert McNamara was Secretary of “Defense” during the Vietnam War.  He deserves our ear now, and was interviewed recently by Time magazine.

He said that during the cold war there were real threats.  “But I suspect we exaggerated, greatly exaggerated, the strength that lay behind those threats, and therefore I think we probably misused our resources and directed excessive resources toward responding to those threats at considerable cost to our domestic societies.” 

Ah, hindsight!  We wish he had fired a broadside at the CIA.  Note once again the reference to the trade-off between wealth and weapons. 

“We could have maintained deterrence with a fraction of the number of warheads we built.  The cost is tremendous, —— not just of warheads.  It’s research, and it’s building all the goddam missiles.

“Over the past 20 years the unnecessary costs are in the tens of billions.  Insane.  It was not necessary.  And moreover, our actions stimulated the Russians ultimately.”

We wish we were the interviewer.  We would have asked Mr. McNamara to comment on the relationship between the White House, Pentagon, “defense” contractors, and the CIA (he knows).

Anyway, we salute the man for having the courage to come forward with the truth.  This is a rare commodity in Washington.

He could probably have got away clean if he had kept mum.  We may have discovered an endangered species: a public official with a conscience.

Jefferson: “—— but sound principles will not justify our taxing the industry of our fellow citizens to accumulate treasure for wars to happen we know not when, and which might perhaps not happen but from the temptations offered by that treasure.”  As we wrote above, weapons can drive conflict.

Cut to the other side.  Some of us remember Eduard Shevardnadze, whom Gorbachev made Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union back in the 1980s.

Gorby saw that rigor mortis had set in at the foreign ministry, and he needed someone who could shake up the outfit.  So he picked an outsider over inside bureaucrats who wanted the top job.

Mr. Shevardnadze is a different kind of cat.  Let’s catch a few observations from his book The Future Belongs to Freedom.

“We became a superpower largely because of our military might. —–.

“What kind of national security is this?  It is not just immoral but politically dangerous to equate national security with tanks and nuclear warheads, while leaving out such ‘trivia’ as human life and welfare.”

We wish our President had uttered these words (and believed in them) about 50 years ago.  For decades the US Department of “Defense” has been flogging numbers of tanks, airplanes, and other stuff needed for that elusive balance of power.  What these warhorses were actually doing was making us and our children less safe.

In the guise of doing favors for us citizens these shysters have done it to us.  The former Soviet Union had the same record writ larger.

Shevardnadze: “States that rely mostly on military means of protection cannot consider themselves safe.  They are in a no-win position, for the source of political influence in the world and the protection of national interest increasingly depend on economic, technological, and financial factors, whereas enormous arsenals of weapons cannot provide rational answers to the challenges of the day.  These weapons cannot be used without risking the destruction of one’s own country, its neighbors, and half the world.”

Here’s the kicker.  Now we see why Shevardnadze’s argument for the total elimination of all weapons of mass death and destruction is so important.  In the Age of Reason no one will have any use for them.  Merchants build.  They don’t destroy.

Shevardnadze made a towering point about American policy for development of nukes.  “I want to note a particular subtlety here: They were used not only against the Japanese, but against the Soviet Union.

“First, by sowing in our hearts the seeds of alarm, it engendered a striving to create the means for atomic self-defense and an adequate nuclear arsenal.  In other words, the first explosions of American bombs also exploded the strategic stability and sparked the nuclear arms race.”

Nuclear weapons do not command respect.  Rather, they arouse fear and great efforts to reduce that fear through acquiring a supply of such weapons in response to an enormous perceived external threat.  (In a democracy, respect is earned.)  Diplomacy does not command respect.  It earns it.

There is no end to this fear-driven process, and hence the arms race.  This is why all must be eliminated.

And one last heavy observation: “I believed that truth was all-powerful, that one need only give it a voice, and it would have its own productive effect.  Now I see that I was cruelly mistaken.  THE PRODUCTIVITY OF TRUTH LARGELY DEPENDS ON SOCIETY’S READINESS TO DEMAND IT, AND ON THE STATE OF THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO FIND THE COURAGE TO DISSEMINATE THE TRUE WORD (our caps and emphasis).”  Edward Snowden springs to mind.

We would like to meet this gentleman.  We look forward to meeting anyone who has courage, and who has insights into truth.

We want our hearts and minds to move toward world peace, with courage in our hearts and truth in our minds.  Friends, this is where we want to go.  We want to bestow real meaning and action on the traditional Christmas greeting: “Peace on earth, and goodwill to men and women.”

Widespread agreement on this.  So, how is the government doing?  Or, is after 9/11 a bad time to ask?

The Economist commented on al-Qaeda.  “Its aims are mystical, not rational.  It does its violence in the name of Allah and so accepts no worldly obligation to moderate it.  It is rich, and it is capable.”

Punishment, for what crime(s)?  Over the past 60 years the American government has surely accepted no worldly obligation to moderate its persistent violence.

An old taboo on “nation-building” abroad will have to be put aside.  Now, just a minute.

If GW Bush has the right to rebuild Iraq, this must mean some other nation, say, Iran, has the right to come over here and rebuild the USA.  Would we citizens agree to this?

North Korea may be trying to engage a standoffish America rather than threatening it.  “North Korea is not in a position to threaten the US.  It’s also not in a mood to do so,” says Jia Qingguo of Beijing University, ——.”

An act of engagement did not fit into the Texas gunslinger’s plans for war on the axis of evil.  For 65 years North Korea has lived in fear of the roughly 37,000 American soldiers stationed just across the border with South Korea.  Remove them, and be surprised at how soon President Kim Jong-Il simmers down.  (This still applies today, with son Kim Jong Un in charge.)

But a gunslinger does not feel that surge of personal power unless he has an enemy handy.  When the supply of these runs low he will take actions aimed at recruiting a couple extra.

As we mentioned, Bush’s pre-emption policy is scary (June 2002 Economist): “The danger of mass-destruction weapons of any kind makes the doctrine of striking first seem more justifiable —– not just against al-Qaeda operatives but also, —— against rogue states.”

Now then.  Look at the situation through the eye of the other fellow for a moment.  He sees the US in possession of mountains of the most formidable weapons of mass destruction.  He sees the new doctrine of first strike.

Friends, what is this political leader going to think?  What will he do after having thought about it?  No need to answer these questions here in print, is there?

A January 2003 article put a capper on this section.  “—– start of 2003, America is on the verge of war with Iraq and faces a diplomatic showdown with a nuclear-armed North Korea.  How on earth did containment turn into a crisis —– in just a couple of years?”

We understood that the idea in Iraq was to get rid of Saddam and set up a democracy. 

Hard to argue with those objectives, we suppose, so Saddam was executed.

Turow (11/2006 Wall Street Journal column) also thought democracy was a good idea, so he suggested that the US follow the democratic process and conduct a referendum vote among Iraqi citizens.  They would vote on whether Ameerican soldiers should remain or leave.

US marines slammed into Fallujah, “—— to blast out the car-bombers presumed to be sheltering there, —–.”  Hard to believe that fighting fire with fire will put it out.

“’You have to resolve it politically,’ says a Sunni (Iraqi) on the American-appointed Governing Council.”  We recall when then-UN Secretary-General U Thant, who had grown up in the region, said the same thing about Vietnam.

A thought occurred to us.  A young man in a place like Fallujah must believe he is a target for American sharpshooters, even tho he is not a jihadi.  (They don’t wear uniforms.)

Rational thinking suggests that he join the jihadis, as they will give him survival training in urban warfare.  As he sees the situation grow worse and a relative killed his next thought would be training in killing skills.

And so there!  A new convert to the resistance.  President Bush has found a far more effective recruiting tool.  We guestimated that sending a “surge” of 21,000 troops into Baghdad would generate at least twice that number of new jihadis.

In October 2007 and with the surge, the total number of troops in Iraq (US plus NATO) was more than three times that of four years previously.  The Islamic militias had been recruiting as we thought they would, so 2007 was the bloodiest year yet.

Some of the police trained by the US shed their uniforms and joined the jihadis.  American soldiers are helping a military academy in Tikrit.  But marines have found the academy’s badges on enemy corpses.

Recently suicide bombers have forced US troops to become trigger-happy, firing on innocent motorists.  This practice creates still more jihadis.  This also makes it hard to “win hearts and minds,” as Bush wants the troops to do.

In September 2007 we found opposite perceptions within the Bush administration.  A GAO (Government Accounting Office) report suggested that there has been no measurable decrease in sectarian violence in Iraq.

But military evaluations and media coverage insisted there has been a decrease.  Since Bush’s surge that began in February independent interviews show no increase in optimism, including in Baghdad.

In March 2008 militants fired explosives into Baghdad’s presumably heavily fortified “green zone.”  This is the headquarters of American diplomats and top military officers.

Seven years after the war began the “insurgency” was still a lethal force.  Oil stolen from Iraqi wells and money from rich Saudi princes routed to the jihadis helps keep it strong. 

As of late August 2010 President Obama had removed about 130,000 fighters and handed the rest of the war over to the State Department.  This is strange.

State Department diplomats are specifically trained to negotiate toward reducing tensions between countries so that war can be avoided.  Obama wants them to suddenly do a 180 and become fighters?

We suspect that the pentagon will continue the fighting (which is not over by any means).  But the prez wants us peasants to believe he is keeping his 8/31 promise to pull his fighters out.

Yeah, we know he said the war is ending.  But August was the deadliest month for Iraqi security people in two years.

THE SITUATION AS THE REST OF THE WORLD PERCEIVES IT-

THE WORLD BULLY

Here is a beauty that we will never see in a US news medium (Economist 3/31/1997): “The news will surprise some of its members, but no one appointed the congress of the United States as God.  No, nor even as lawmaker, policeman, jury, judge, and executioner to planet Earth.  Not even the American president, who at least heads, not just legislates for, the planet’s only superpower, can claim as much.  (Trump did this.)

“Yet between them —- congress more, Mr. Clinton less —- they have been trying to play all these roles.  And in so doing they have antagonized their country’s friends without notably hurting its enemies.

Late 2014 webcast (on the congress): “But there is one good egg, a positive exception.  ———- former congressman.  His name is Ron Paul and he has become a rising political star in Russia.  All because of Mr. Paul’s position on Resolution 758, ——– which condemns the actions of the Russian Federation toward Georgia and Ukraine starting from 2008 —-.

“In his new article, entitled ‘House Chooses New Cold War with Russia,’ Ron Paul lashes out at R758, calling it ‘one of the worst pieces of legislation I can remember,’ and ‘so full of propaganda ——–.

“According to Mr. Paul, R758 condemns Russia ‘for doing exactly what the US government has been doing for years’ around the world.”  Paul is extremely valuable to America and the West because he knows truth and is not afraid to speak it.

“This is no way to treat neighbors.  That a big country can arm-twist small ones is a fact of life; to make a yearly, codified, public display of it ought not to be.”

We could not say it better.  Here we have a most convincing explanation why the vast majority of the rest of the world calls the US government a bully.  The pentagon springs to mind.

The European edition of Time magazine conducted a website poll, and several hundred thousand citizens responded.  The question: Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?

The responses: North Korea 7 percent; Iraq 8 percent; and the USA 84 percent.

We referred to this above.  Here we will indulge ourselves in a bit of elaboration, and then offer our suggestion for improving the situation.

SOME COMMENTS FROM ABROAD:  Bookstores in France display many titles claiming that the US is a bully out to dominate the world.  Recently sales have picked up dramatically.  Experts tell us that customers’ anger and fear have tremendously increased since the younger Bush took over as dictator.

George Galloway is a member of the British Parliament.  He wrote that the 9/11 attacks were “a challenge to the hitherto untrammeled ability of the US to deal out death and destruction.”

Maybe he thought that Osama bin Laden was curious to see how we liked it when we were receiving instead of dealing.  “Untrammeled” suggests that officials in the American government sincerely believed that they could rain hell on people almost anywhere and get clean away with it.  Vice-president Dick Cheney seemed to believe this.

Friends, bear in mind that al-Qaeda’s primary objective is to spread panic among us, so eventually we will force a change in foreign policy.  It is amazing how closely this strategy matches that in Washington: keep the rabble panic-stricken so they will hunker down and remain dependent on Big Brother for their personal safety. 

Jihadists in al-Qaeda apparently did not realize that we cannot force a change in “our” government simply because we lack a voice in its policies.  Jefferson’s “—– consent of the governed (from his/our Declaration of Independence) had long since vaporized.

See Pocket Gofer 18 and its description of the external threat theory.  This gimmick is older than dirt, but it still works on unthinking people.  See also the essay.

In December 2001 Ekram Haque commented on the government’s reaction to 9/11.  “Contrary to President Bush’s assurance that America is not at war with Islam, the relentless bombing of Afghanistan is creating precisely that impression among many Muslims.

“And by no means is this the end of it.  The American public slowly is being prepared for similar campaigns in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Kashmir, Palestine, and other places.”  Note the reference to Iraq in a 2001 article.  Bush’s war began in 2003.

At first blush this surely seems a stretch, naming so many possible targets of American foreign aggression.  But we have learned that in matters political and military a second blush is always in order.  Just a glance at the bully’s history over the past 60 years is all that is necessary to get to an accurate conclusion.

Haque: “America’s overwhelming military response is bound to create more enemies in the future.  —— same failed foreign policy Washington has pursued in the past, only now it has become markedly more belligerent.  How long can the US deny that its own policies are partially to blame for this mess?”

The ruler of Bahrain: “To my mind, if we push for a war, we will push many people from mistrust and frustration to hatred and revenge.”  Looks like Bush hatched a litter of bin Ladens.

We learned of one, named Anwar al-Awlaki, who has born in the US and was thus a citizen.  For years he went to great efforts to mend relations between conflicting religions here. 

Nothing changed.  Finally he gave up and headed for Yemen as a sworn enemy of his native land.  A pentagon drone killed him without the due process that citizens of this country are guaranteed by the Constitution.  Nothing appeared in the American media about his pre-departure efforts.

The Economist (12/2001) reads and watches as well as reports news.  “—– Egyptian daily asserted that the war in Afghanistan was merely a test for the new weapons America will use to ‘enforce absolute sovereignty over the world at large.’”  This country annually receives hundreds of millions of American taxpayer aid.

On 9/8/2007 the Economist published a letter from Dmitry Peshkov, first deputy secretary to the President of Russia.  “SIR- Your assertion that Russia wields influence in global affairs thru ‘fear’ and that it wants to return to the zero-sum strategic thinking of the cold war is fundamentally wrong.”

We find it refreshing to have this newspaper taken to task for its amazingly persistent cold war mentality years after its end.  Perhaps the editors want to avoid getting caught on the wrong side should a conflict break out.  Unfortunately its editors, like the standard American media, remain cold war dinosaurs.

We fervently wish they would wake up and smell the coffee: the merchant is slowly replacing the warrior on the world stage.  Reporting should encourage this trend.  War has been a self-fulfilling prophesy for far too long.

The British Robert Fisk spent 25 years reporting on the Middle East.  He wrote The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East.  Its 1,038 pages are crammed with truth.

Therefore he had constantly to fight to get his reports past editors.  “But war is primarily not about victory or defeat but about death and infliction of death.  It represents the total failure of the human spirit.”

Here is a dose of truth about terrorism.  “Terrorists, terrorists, terrorists.  In the Middle East, in the entire Muslim world, this word would become a plague, a meaningless punctuation mark in all our lives, a full stop erected to finish all discussion of injustice, constructed as a wall by Russians, Americans, Israelis, British, Pakistanis, Saudis, Turks, to shut us up.”

Fisk delved into history to show that in 1919 the British expected the Iraqis to welcome their soldiers, who had saved them from the Turks.  “Within six months, Britain was fighting an insurrection in Iraq and —— prime minister, was facing calls for a military withdrawal.  (In 2006 60% of Britons wanted their troops brought home that year.)

“All the precedents were there.  For Kufa 1920, read Kufa 2004.  For Najaf 1920, read Najaf 2004.  For Yadzi in 1920, read ‘Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in 2004.  For Badr in 1920, read ‘Saddam remnants’ and al-Qaeda in 2004.”

Could all the Bushies have flunked history class?  Or is it those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it?  And now we must brace ourselves as Fisk reports from the real war front like no other news report we have seen.

“It was the tenth ground-to-ground missile attack on Dezful since the start of the war, and by the time I reached the impact point the images were as appalling as they were banal.  A baby cut in half, a woman’s head in the rubble of her home, a series of arms and legs laid out beside each other next to a series of torsos in the hope that someone might be able to fit the correct limbs onto the right bodies.”

Friends, this is war today.  It is not heroes, victory, and ticker-tape parades.  That was then.

“——- government-approved shipments of biological agents (poison gas) sent by American companies to Iraq since 1985.

“All civilians.  Some were scattered, but there were many women who held children in their arms and they all lay there dead.  —————.  We soldiers were too frightened even to discuss it.  We just saw so many dead.  And we were silent.”

On July 3, 1988 the American cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, killing close to 300 civilians.  The Pentagon “apologized” for this mass tragedy.

“——- we didn’t mean to do it, —— mistake.  But it was Iran’s fault.  Already the machinery was turning.  The Americans who had destroyed the passenger jet were the potential victims; the real victims — all of them dead — were the aggressors.

“When the ship returned to its home base of San Diego, it was given a hero’s welcome.  The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat action ribbons.

“But something very unethical had taken place here: my report on the shooting down of the Iranian Airbus had been, in every sense of the word, tampered with, changed and censored.”  Once again if we may: The first casualty of war is always truth.

Fisk turned to Palestine-Israel.  “To place the brunt of the burden upon Arab Palestine is a miserable evasion of duty ——–.  It is also morally outrageous.

“For in the decades to come, the Palestinians would be the ‘terrorists’ and those who took their lands would be the innocent, ——–.

In January 2009 Gwynne Dyer showed that with far superior fire power the Israelis can’t lose the fight.  But they can’t win either, as repeated bashings over 70 years have amply demonstrated.

However, they keep bashing anyhow so as to look tough before elections.  Only very few seem to be concerned that about 80 Palestinians die for every Israeli.  As we have argued, stop the annual $3 billion of US taxpayer aid to Israelis and they will negotiate in good faith.

News & Observer 6/13: “—– three days of high-level meetings in Jordan and Israel.”  Not only Déjà vu, but strictly for show.  No mention of taxpayer money propping up Israel.  Secretary  of state Kerry knows about this, but said nothing.

To Gulf War II in 2003 (Fisk)- “——– reporters and their newspapers and television stations subsequently fought like tigers to join these ‘pools’ in which they would be censored, restrained and deprived of all freedom of movement on the battlefield.”  “Embedding” was a crock before the first journalist ventured out.

“For the American reporter, however, the privileges of the ‘pool’ and the military rules attached to it were more important than the right of a journalist to do his job.

“Immaturity, inexperience, upbringing: you can choose any excuse you want.  But they created war without death.  They lied.

“But to become one with these burned creatures at the moment of immolation, the seconds of indescribable pain, the brief awareness, the knowing of such suffering, this was surely too much.  Yet we looked into these carbonized faces.

“But the world was not allowed to see what we saw, the burned, eviscerated souls, the chopped-off, monstrous heads, the scavenging animals.  Thus did we help to make war acceptable.

“——- a British doctor told me.  ‘What’s really puzzling is that the Americans know where a lot of mass graves are and must have files on how may Iraqis they buried in each grave.  They are hiding the figures.’”

US Census Bureau demographer Beth Daponte was asked to gather figures on Iraqi casualties.  She came up with about 86,000 men, 40,000 women and 32,000 children killed by coalition forces (mostly American).  She was fired.

Friends, as if all this was not enough: “There was one final scourge ——- contaminate Iraqis for years to come, perhaps for generations.  ——–.  —— abscesses, in massive tumors, in gangrene, internal bleeding and child mastectomies and shrunken heads and deformities and thousands of tiny graves.

“—— – American depleted-uranium shells (can penetrate armor).”  This is as foul as anyone can do.

“You could not move thru Baghdad’s ‘ward of death’ without two emotions — a deep sense of unease, even shame, that ‘our’ 1991 military victory over the cruel Saddam might well have created this purgatory of the innocent by poisoning both the air they breathe and the land they try to grow up in, and a profound admiration for the dignity of the poor Iraqis who sometimes sell their own clothes in a vain effort to save the children who die in their arms.

“When I first reported from Iraq’s child cancer wards in February and March 1998, the British government went to great lengths to discredit what I wrote.”

“——- American and British soldiers suffering from what had become known as Gulf War Syndrome appeared to be suffering from almost identical cancers and leukemia and internal bleeding as the children ——–.

In 2003 American soldiers were still using depleted uranium.  This seems as foul as any government can do to its own people.

In 2007 there were 48,000 private soldiers hired by Bush and paid far more than regular soldiers.  They operate with next to no supervision and their deaths aren’t part of official statistics.

Private contractors such as Halliburton, Blackwater and Louis Berger Group have been hired for security and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They have taken advantage of typically poor accountability during any war to loot taxpayer money.

The last one was caught during 9/2010 by a whistleblower whose computer disk was loaded with incriminating documents.  There were also allegations of waste, fraud and shoddy construction.

The pentagon was not fazed (Taylor and Strobel, News & Observer 9/19/10): “In fact, two months after the government learned —— tapped Louis Berger to oversee another $1.4 billion ——.”  Friends, no problem here.  It’s not their money.

We were not supposed to know about this sneaky expansion of the war, but we were expected to pay for it anyhow.  Then one day several Blackwater guys killed 17 Iraqi civilians and the lid blew off.

By June 2009 Fisk’s truth was leaking out in spite of the British government’s efforts.  Economist 6/27: “Iraq has sorely strained the covenant between the armed forces and the country they defend.  It has left deep grievances among ordinary soldiers and top brass ——.”

News & Observer 7/12/09: “The deaths of eight British soldiers in Afghanistan within 24 hours triggered a debate ——- could undercut support for the war ——-.

“Britain’s support is crucial to any American effort.”  The Taliban know this and they know what Brits are thinking, so they are probably targeting British soldiers.  These and Australian soldiers had just left Iraq, and so the “coalition” was down to just one foreign aggressor: the USA.

Economist 7/09: “The arrival of the first American reinforcements in Helmand (Afghanistan) last year, in the form of a 2,400-strong ——, did not achieve much.

“Nad Ali illustrates much of what has gone wrong.  The district had been one of the few loyal to the government.

“But the Afghan police there, as elsewhere, are corrupt, often predatory and driven by tribal interests.”  This makes us wonder how the necessary million or so Afghans can be trained to take over after America and NATO have left, especially when over half of the Afghans are illiterate.

Afghanistan still lacks a working government.  Haji Mahboob Khan: “But if NATO sent another 100,000 troops to Helmand, without a good government that is free of all these thieves, they won’t be able to bring security.”

PEOPLE ACT ON THEIR PERCEPTIONS: As we mentioned, low-quality power is violence and the threat of violence.  It always generates resentment, hatred, and a desire to get even.  Ancient Chinese proverb: “If you seek revenge, dig two graves.”

Callers on radio shows accuse America of being reckless, bullying, unprincipled, oil-greedy, and led by a moron.  No one likes the lash, especially when it is not deserved.

We didn’t on September 11, 2001.  But there are those who swear that we asked for it with our foreign policy.

But, did we?  Well, yes if we equate “we” with the government’s foreign policy.

Asians often make a firm distinction between American citizens, whom they like, and the government, whose policies they surely don’t like.  But then, they have access to a variety of less biased news media.

Ahmed Chalabi was in the Iraqi government before the second war.  It looks like he gave the American government false info regarding Iraq’s WMDD, and suggested that the Iraqis would welcome our soldiers with flowers when they invaded.

No one verified this info.  The neo-conservatives (read “bullies”) in government simply bought it.

From Lapham’s book Gag Rule: “A chorus of senior editorial voices followed the scripts prepositioned by the White House and the Pentagon, solemnly interpreting the policy of preemptive bombing, precision-guided ——–, as a form of compassionate conservatism.”  If we buy this one the government has a terrific deal on a bridge ……

These editors knew that “bombing” and “compassionate” are a contradiction in terms.  But as lackeys of the high and mighty in government they dared not reveal this truth.  What wimps!  Given a chance, Fisk would surely give each 39 lashes.

Alterman and Greene in The Book on Bush: “A large segment of the media, in awe of the Bush propaganda machine, and concerned that conservatives not question their patriotism, chose to give the administration a pass for its deceptions.”

Public officials spent our tax money to flimflam us, and the news media cooperated.  Pocket Gofers 5 and 19 elaborate.

We make this point because we had to nearly abandon the American news media in order to research the following info.  (Because citizens are so gullible, there may be a few who would say we are not patriots for writing the pocket gofers.)

On September 11 the political imperative was to once again send soldiers abroad and kill the terrorists so they will not do such a dastardly deed again.  But all the dastardly deed doers are dead, and the shadowy enemy leaves no trail.

Shortly after 9/11 President Bush’s treasury secretary Paul O’Neill mentioned that planning for a war in Iraq was already underway.  The Bushies jumped on him from every direction.

An Arab might argue that al-Qaeda and the peoples it claims to represent have previously been punished.  These peoples did not put the oil in the ground.

They had nothing to say about 50+ years of huge government subsidies to Big Oil.  This expense displaced research into other sources of energy.

They did not establish Israel on Arab lands, and then bring hundreds of thousands of additional Jews to settle on this land.  Finally, they did not invite the Israeli government to grab additional Palestinian lands and put apparently permanent settlements on the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem.  (Jewish settlers in Gaza were later removed.)

Lawrence Wright wrote The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.  While watching an al-Qaeda recruiting video he translated its Arabic chants: “We have been humiliated!  We have been humiliated!”

In May 2007 an opinion survey of respondents in Muslim countries (Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia) found 79% believing that America intends to divide and weaken the Muslim world.  They want American troops out of all Muslim countries.  (We would not object.)

President Obama believed his June 09 Cairo speech was one of the three most important things he had done to combat terrorism.  We wonder how he can continue to believe this after sending additional troops to Afghanistan and allowing drone airplanes to go on killing Afghan civilians.

In Egypt 91% approve of attacks on American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We believe this nation still gets about $2 billion annually of US taxpayer money in aid.

Prestowitz’s 2004 book Rogue Nation: “If America had the same energy efficiency as the European Union, it could ——- do without oil imports, period.  This would cut $100 billion a year off the US trade deficit, stop the flow of US money that gets recycled thru oil-producing countries in the Middle East to fund terrorism and the spread of radical Islam, and greatly reduce the need for US military deployments in the Persian Gulf.

“These deployments, which cost $60 billion annually, raise the real cost of Gulf oil to about $200 a barrel.”  Thus the real price of a gallon of gas is about $8.00.  (Today fracking in the Permian Basin has drastically reduced imports.)

By May 2008 the Iraq war cost had gone to $120 billion/year.  Nobel Economics Laureate Stiglitz (News & Observer 5/18/08): “Right now, the average American household spends $100 a month to support the war (directly) and racks up another $100 in debt every month for long-term war costs (such as long-term medical care for wounded veterans).  We could put Social Security on sound financial footings for the next 50 to 75 years for a fraction of what this war has cost the economy.”

The first-blush passionate reaction to 9/11 was “kill, Kill!”  Permit time and opportunity for reason to enter our thinking, and we might conclude there is a better way.  Because Ike followed this approach he presided over nearly eight years of peace.  He forced his emotion-driven generals to back off and let reason have a go.  Five crises later, he had found a non-violent solution every time.  Author Ambrose: “—— a magnificent performance.”

The Economist (June 2002) sounded off on terrorism when it referred to a failed “dirty bomb” attack.  “With terrorism, the most important thing is not just the number of people you kill, but the number that you frighten.”

Important point here.  Public officials in Washington want to keep the riffraff in a constant state of panic, because in that condition we won’t object as these officials grab additional great gobs of personal power over us.  See PG13.

Al-Qaeda’s objective matches this aim to perfection.  It and BIG GOVERNMENT share the same goal, but we will never see this mentioned in public.  (See Pocket Gofer 18 for an elaboration of the external threat theory.)

In fact, Fisk is right; the word “terrorism” has lost its meaning, especially when we perceive each conflict situation from both sides.  And until we do this, conflict will not cease.

A reasonable approach to terrorism would be to pin down its cause.  From this viewpoint we might move forward toward a solution that appeals to reason, rather than continue with the traditional, emotional, and self-defeating eye-for-an-eye response.

William Beeman is an expert on the Middle East (9/2001 column).  He commented on 9/11: “This event is not an isolated instance of violence.  This is not an ‘act of war.’  It is one symptom of a cancer that threatens to metastasize.

“The root cause is not terrorist activity, as has been widely stated.  It is the relationship between America and the Islamic world.

“Until this central cancerous problem is treated, Americans will never be free from fear.  ————-.  If we perpetuate a cycle of hate and revenge, this conflict will escalate into a war that our great-grandchildren will be fighting.”

Over the past year or two a third of all terror suspects have been US citizens.  It surely seems that someone is trying to get a message thru to the government.  Unfortunately, that outfit does not listen well.  Desire for a free press springs to mind.

Economist 12/2010: “Some 27% of those captured between 1997 and 2003 were western-reared, the study found, and all had ties to shady organizations.  Between 2004 and 2008, fully 84% of culprits had a western upbringing but only 28% had links to foreign militants.”

Well, now.  So much for media-hyped “links to al-Qaeda” and “axis of evil.”  Terrorist groups have apparently realized that they no longer need to go to the risk, expense and trouble of attacking America.

They need simply encourage red-blooded US citizens to do their dirty work.  Is it reasonable to conclude that American foreign policy might be turning its own citizens against each other?

Beeman: “—– statement asserting that America had, in effect, declared war against God by stationing forces on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia, besieging and bombing Iraq, and supporting Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.  —– conclude with a fatwa demanding that every Muslim comply with ‘God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money.’  This is the imperative that drives Mr. bin Laden.”

Hold it.  We thought we had God on our side.  Does this mean there are different perceptions of the Almighty, depending on which side is talking?  But we are all God’s children, aren’t we?  Soon American citizens travelling abroad might be attacked.

The fatwa is aimed at us peasants, but the cause is the government’s foreign policy.  We are alienated from what was our government.  US foreign policy has put many overseas expatriate civilians in harm’s way.

Like Beeman, Sarah Shields also has a background in Islam (9/2001 column):  “From a humanitarian point of view (we would say perception), killing the people of Afghanistan is appalling.  They lived thru Soviet occupation and a war for independence; they have survived a civil war, a drought, and countless attacks against civilians since the end of the Soviet era.

“They did not choose the Taliban; they have suffered from Taliban rule.  What horrible irony for the people of Afghanistan to be punished by the US for helplessly harboring the terrorists we helped to create (our emphasis).”

But Shields was not yet thru.  “New misguided US policies will create dozens, perhaps hundreds more bin Ladens.”  Looks very much like the first few hundred have already signed aboard.

Iraqis believe Americans came for oil, Israel’s security, and to control the entire Middle East.  Some of this may be inaccurate, but people act on their perceptions.

On more irony, the American military in Afghanistan paid war lords to seek out members of al-Qaeda in their mountain hideouts.  Then the war lords took bribes from members to let them go.  Working both sides of the street is usually profitable.  Friends, if you don’t know the territory ….

Very early in the occupation Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army.  A year later and with high unemployment many of these 700,000 men became guerillas.

Some officers in the new Iraqi army being trained by US soldiers ordered their men to hand their weapons to the other side.  These are most likely American-made weapons, which were later fired at our guys and gals.

A bully’s thinking does not go beyond full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes.  Which policy guarantees a continuing supply of torpedoes.

The latest tyrant from the bully dynasty is obviously George W. Bush.  We touch here on some of the worst examples.

Shortly after 9/11 Bush stated in a meeting that he wanted to activate bombs, cruise missiles, and boots on the ground.  He wanted these “—— in Afghanistan, first, and across the globe.”  (We quote this from Suskind’s book The Price of Loyalty.)

Alterman and Greene:”——- in 2000 by a group of neocons ——- nothing less than the creation of a worldwide imperial American empire, with forces based all around the globe.”  Did any of these neocons read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire?

If this is possible, after 9/11 it got worse.  Bush quoted “I went to dinner ——- with fifteen leaders of the European Union, and patiently sat there as all fifteen in one form or another told me how wrong I was.  And at the end I said, ‘I appreciate your point of view, but this is the American position because it’s right for America.’”

Is this quote a shining example of the courage of a true leader?  Or is it a thoughtless example of testosterone-soaked pigheadedness?

Polls were taken in many countries, including some US allies (if there are any left).  Respondents said they feared George W. Bush more than Saddam Hussein or even Osama bin Laden.

Pew Research requested favorability ratings of five nations: America, France, Germany, Japan, and China.  The US was ranked at the bottom in every country except India.

In his January 2005 state of the union speech, Bush: “I will not wait on events, while dangers gather.  I will not stand by, as perils draw closer and closer.”  Was he speaking for himself or for those who supply the money? 

Webster defines “megalomania; ”a form of mental illness marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc., or an obsession with doing extravagant or grand things.”  Donald Trump springs to mind.

Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were denied access to lawyers.  This policy violated the same values and Rule of Law that America has stood for since 1776.

PERCEPTIONS OF DEMOCRACY: This perception causes a problem for American citizens who travel abroad.  Due to news media hype most foreigners believe that we have a democracy.

Some of us here still believe we have a democracy.  But in a democracy citizens govern themselves.  Therefore we citizens ordered the bombing of Kosovo, and all of the past 50 or so years of American forces going around the world shooting up various places in it.

Iraqis perceive a democracy sending soldiers to kill them, destroy their property, and forcibly occupy a sovereign nation.  If this is democracy, they are thinking, “we don’t want any part of it.”  What if Iraqi citizens were to build a democracy, and then show the US what one looks like?

This is highly unlikely, in part because the American government is such a poor example.  The Economist (3/2010) commented on Iraq’s election.

“Party leaders ——- dispatch rivals (read murder) rather than engage them.  Alliances —— often end with knives in backs.  ———.  Government institutions are viewed as spoils, divided up between parties. 

“——- involvement of more than 60 American government agencies in spending $53 billion have undermined the biggest aid project since the Marshal Plan.”  Bureaucratic turf battles can vaporize billions of taxpayer bucks.

“Thus began a very dirty election campaign.  ———-.  Vote-buying is endemic.  Expectations of ballot stuffing are widespread.”

True to recent form, the American news media reported very favorably on the election.  Obama: “— a milestone in Iraqi history.”  But the fact remains that after spending $800 billion the grand plan has still not worked.

Democracy is free choice among citizens as they govern themselves.  By definition, it is the absence of force and therefore it cannot be imposed thru armed force.

Many people can’t yet appreciate this insight.  The Economist (1/29/05) published an article entitled “Democracy at Gunpoint.”  These editors really should know.

The government may be losing control of the news media, as we forecasted in Pocket Gofer 5.  Citizens can today receive al-Jazeera, an Arab TV station, in English.

So we learned that powerful Iraqi Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said the current US-backed government is worse than that of Saddam Hussein.  He also said anyone facing foreign occupation had the right to armed resistance.  His Mahdi army is well armed.

If enough of us get the truth in the war, folks in the pussycat media would look like fools.  If we then demand and keep demanding truth in reporting, dead US soldiers and Iraqi and Afghani civilians would have given their lives for a very good cause: the end of wars.  See the essay on “Futility of War.”

In Fall 2008 violence in Afghanistan was at its highest level since 2001.  They want foreign aggressors to leave them alone, just as did their ancestors when first the British and later the Soviet Russians invaded.  The Afghans threw out the British in the 19^th century, the Soviet Russians in the 20^th, and are now throwing out the Americans in the 21^st.  Those who cannot learn from history ………

Ditto Iraq.  Also in Fall 2008 followers of al-Sadr staged a big rally.  A leader named Hazim al-Arraji said, ‘This is the voice of the Iraqi people from all over Iraq.  We need the invaders to leave our country.  No one wants them to stay.  ‘No invasion!  Get out invaders!’  That will be our slogan.”

TOOLS OF THE BULLY: There are too many arms merchants, and more are entering the market every year.  Shortly after Gulf war I our hard-line warriors and “defense” contractors cheered and salivated.  The technological superiority of US-made weapons had been proven, and so the trafficking business was about to pick up.  (Eisenhower called these characters “merchants of death.”)

It did.  Apparently no one considered the fact that US generals manipulated news coverage so that all we saw were bombs and missiles that hit their targets.

Iain Carson (Economist 7/2002) pointed out that two reasons for heavy international arms trafficking are that it is “—–an extension of foreign policy.  The other is that it ——- maintains the economic health of domestic defense companies.  Both are nonsense.”

Carson next quoted Anthony Sampson from his book The Arms Bazaar in the 1990s: “The speed with which Saddam —— had first built up his arsenal, and then turned it against his suppliers, made nonsense of the diplomats’ justification for selling arms; ———.”  Carson didn’t mention the real reason: money.

We suspect that two of the three prongs of Bush’s axis of evil conspired to fake him out of his jockstrap.  Just as the Iraq issue got hot in fall 2002 Kim Jong-il of North Korea let it be known that he plans to cook up some plutonium.

The timing was so perfect that we suspected something.  This development made Bush look weak, as he then had to settle for diplomacy with a nuclear power while he goes to war against a non-nuclear power (Nuclear guru Mohammad el-Baradei was in Iraq and found no advanced plans for development).

Maybe Bush’s talk about pre-emptive strikes was hawgwash?  Hard to say.

Ron Reagan’s invasion of tiny Grenada violated Article 18 of the charter of the Organization of American States, and also the UN charter.  Then there was the invasion of another sovereign country named Panama, and the government looked in the other direction when our friend Israel invaded Southern Lebanon in 1982.

The World Court condemned parts of these actions.  US Government officials ignored the Court’s judgment.  Might makes right.

But if a little guy like Saddam Hussein dares to invade someone; WELL!!  Such an unspeakable outrage must be rectified.

American government foreign military forays have got to be a habit.  During the 1990s there were more of them than during the 40 years of the Cold War.

The US military advantage exceeds the combined total of the next 22 military powers.  No need to ask whether the government is building an empire.

Andrew Bacevich wrote The Limits to Power.  “Yet if presidents have accrued too much power, if the congress is feckless, if the national security bureaucracy is irretrievably broken, the American people have only themselves to blame. 

“They have allowed their democracy to be hijacked.  The hijackers will not voluntarily return what they have stolen.”  Friends, we can remove the current authoritarian regime without violence.  Our weapons are reason, compassion, prayers and pocket gofers.

An analyst mentioned that America has declared a fatwa against nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.  Our understanding of this Arabic term is that any target of this particular declaration should be killed if a person or destroyed if not.

We doubt if the Bush administration meant to include US supplies of these weapons.  But we can bet our bippy that top leaders of many other nations (and we) mean to include.

In June 2007 Terror Free Tomorrow conducted 1,000 phone interviews in Farsi, covering all 30 provinces of Iran.  Developing nukes was very important for only 29% of respondents, while improving the economy won favor with 88%.

Lots of noise in early 2010 about Iran and its unproven plans for nukes.  Tough sanctions are in place and the bully is asking for more.

On Christmas day 2008 Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s message was broadcast on Britain’s channel 4, in Persian with English subtitles (News & Observer 12/25).  “West isn’t walking with Jesus.

“Crises in society, the family, morality, politics, security and the economy —— unnamed world leaders have forsaken Jesus’ role as the standard bearer of justice, of love for our fellow human beings, of the fight against tyranny, discrimination and injustice.”

Over a year later the president and his spiritual leader Khameini have their hands full due to massive street demonstrations.   But it surely seems that the motivation behind that message from a top leader who worships the same God as we do might be worth some thought.

President Obama is playing this one cool.  Bush would have rubbed their noses in it.  The contrasts are striking.  Ahmadinejad’s soft-pedal critique and Obama’s equally soft response both suggest diplomacy while Bush would have swung his sledge hammer.

In 2015 Obama joined four other countries and the EU to sign a treaty after four years of tense negotiations.  But soon after taking office President Trump took America out of the agreement.  In 9/2017 The Economist commented: “America is right to worry about Iran’s growing influence.  But its strategy for countering it makes nonsense.”

There is a bit of truth to Trump’s stupidity: he swore to negate every good thing done by Obama.  We think he will eventually back down; independent UN inspectors have after several visits reported that Iran is following the treaty conscientiously.

But we are gradually getting to know Trump, so we are hardly surprised that today he has “doubled down” and ordered a huge military presence in the Persian Gulf just offshore from Iran.  This action dramatically underscores his biggest mistake to date.

The might-makes-right thing may be good for only so much worldwide arrogance.  We refer to efforts to establish a world criminal court to punish perpetrators of genocide and other crimes against humanity no matter where they may occur.

For several years America tried to water down the 200-page treaty.  In July 1998 its negotiators forced a vote, hoping to kill the whole thing.

The result was 120 nations in favor and seven against.  The entire room erupted in cheering.

America had wanted a guarantee that none of its soldiers would ever be charged with a war crime.  But this would have gutted the court before it began its business.

This institution should restrain US foreign adventurism: going to various places in the world on a whim and shooting them up.  Soldiers ordered to do such things might have second thoughts if they realized they risked imprisonment in some primitive dungeon in a far-off place.  We think it would be good for the world to see its biggest bully taken down a peg or two.

When the abuse at Abu Ghraib blew up Bush claimed that he took secretary of defense Rumsfeld “to the woodshed.”  Three days later vice-president Cheney said Rummy was “the best secretary of defense the US has ever had.”  WOW!

Economist (12/2005): “For the vice-president and the defense secretary the debate about torture, just like those about Guantanamo ———— apparently come down to military efficiency.  Global public opinion, hearts and minds, ———–, is irrelevant.

Why did Bush not fire Rumsfeld?  Friedman (5/2004) column: “It is more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles.”  (Later he did.)

Ivins (6/2004 column: “In order to justify torture, —— memos declare that the president is bound by neither US law nor international treaties.  We have put ourselves on the same moral level as Saddam Hussein, the only difference being quantity.”

In 1949 America signed the Geneva Convention, which banned torture or any inhuman treatment.  It also ratified the UN Convention Against Torture.  These documents prohibit torture under any circumstances, and no exceptions.

Economist 6/2004: “And it (the memo okaying torture) even ignores the president’s own statement of June 2003: ‘The US is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.’”

An Egyptian agent for several American defense companies: “They ask us not to judge America by the Abu Ghraib guards.  So why did they judge all Arabs by the 9/11 hijackers?”

Jean-Pierre Filiu wrote From Deep State to Islamic State: the Arab Counter-revolution and its Jihadist Legacy.  “The truth was that (Egyptian President) Sadat was advantageously replacing Arab billions for American billions: over $2 billion in civilian aid and more than $1 billion in military aid were pledged by Washington in the Camp David package (with parallel generosity toward Israel).”  If we interpret this passage accurately a billion dollars in military aid was pledged annually to both Egypt and Israel.  These were peace talks?

We did not see the Texas gunslinger respond to this instance of selective perception.  Or to the fact that many Arabs see Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the US occupation of Iraq as one and the same.

Some of us can’t believe it got this bad with President Bush’s okay.  Diehl in a 8/2004 column: “The causal chain is all there: from Bush’s February 2002 decision to Rumsfeld’s December 2002 authorization of nudity, stress positions, and dogs; to the adoption of those methods in Afghanistan and their sanction in Iraq by a commander looking back to Bush’s decision; ——–.”

Rummy had painted himself into a corner.  The longer he kept people in Guantanamo Bay the less just it looked, but if he were to free them no civilian court would convict them based on evidence gathered thru torture.

Economist (11/2005): “The Bush administration’s approach to torture beggars belief.  —————-.  —— you would imagine that George Bush would welcome —– amendment passed by Congress to ban American soldiers and spies from torturing prisoners.  ———— you might imagine that a shrewd president —— such a law himself to set the record straight.

“But you would be wrong.  This week saw the sad spectacle of an American president lamely trying to explain to the citizens of Panama that, yes, he would veto any such bill but, no, ‘We do not torture.’

“Meanwhile, ———- Dick Cheney, has been across on Capitol Hill trying to bully senators to exclude America’s spies from any torture ban.  To add a note of farce to the tragedy, the administration has had to explain that the CIA is not torturing prisoners at its secret prisons ————— tho of course it cannot confirm that such prisons exist.”

A year later Bush did propose a law (Economist 10/2006): “Not only does it permit the CIA to continue its harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists in secret prisons abroad, it also strips foreign detainees of one of the civilized world’s most ancient legal protections — the right to challenge their detention in court.”

During February 2008 the CIA director reported in detail to the congress about that outfit’s use of waterboarding.  The Bushies called this grisly procedure an “interrogation technique,” but the world calls it torture.  If it were legal the CIA would not have destroyed its videos of waterboarding sessions.

We have a thought.  Now that Liberia’s Charles Taylor is standing trial for crimes against humanity and Slobodan Milosevic died in custody, could Mr. Bush be just a bit worried that the International Criminal Court will come after him?

Nah!  This is ridiculous.  But then, there is a lawsuit on file in Germany that names Donald Rumsfeld as defendant.  We continue to hope that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will be sent to The Hague to answer for their crimes.  If they truly believe they did nothing wrong they have nothing to fear.  (All are out of office now, but any charges would still be applicable.)

Retired Army Major General Anthony Taguba investigated detainee treatment at Abu Ghraib.  He agreed with us: accused top Bush dogs of war crimes.

A thinking citizen may wonder why during the long cold war citizens from communist countries defected in droves toward the West, and during the Bush administration we saw defections going the opposite way.  There is a message in this trend.

9/2014 webcast – “Across the world, a generation has now grown up amid this continuous conflict, and there’s no end in sight.”  Orwell wrote his book titled 1984 in 1949.  He forecasted constant war.  Looks like the man had amazing foresight.

EYEBALL-TO-EYEBALL: In 1956 France joined Britain and Israel to organize an attack on Egypt’s President Nasser.  Convinced that military action would poison relations throughout the Middle East, President Eisenhower stopped this nonsense.

In 2003 America organized an attack on Iraq and France’s president stopped it.  Or, he tried to.  Maybe that country had learned something important in the intervening 47 years?

Bush refused to share the results of satellite snooping over Iraq, and of course he used security as the timeworn excuse.  This secrecy conveniently hid from the public the fact that there was no hard evidence on the ground of Saddam’s presumably huge arsenal of weapons.

Secretary of defense Rumsfeld in September 2002: “There’s no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons … We all know that.  A trained ape knows that.”

In March 2004 David Kay, a CIA man assigned to hunt for “those weapons,” returned from a lengthy and intensive search.  “We were all wrong.”  Did Rummy train that ape?

A senior Iraqi defector who had been in charge of WMDD (we prefer “mass death and destruction,” as this is more accurate) told debriefers that “all weapons and agents” had been destroyed.  Friends, this was in 1995!!

On March 28, 2003 Rania Masri: “How can we judge the ‘worthiness’ of the war if the justifications for it keep changing?  These —– included: Iraqi weapons ——, nuclear weapons capability, purchase of uranium from Niger, and Saddam Hussein’s collaboration with al-Qaeda.

“All these allegations have been proven false!  The Bush administration created lies to justify this war.”

Was Mr. Hussein a mortal threat to America, as Mr. Bush argued?  We wonder if the most serious mortal threat to world peace today is the US, with the world’s most powerful armed force and a warmonger in charge.  We might want to think about this. 

Obama was little different in spite of agreeing to receive the Nobel Peace prize.  After this event he sent extra troops to Afghanistan.  Later thousands of troops left Iraq and Nobel Peace laureate Obama sent many of these to the same place.

Pew Research Center survey results: 74 percent of Pakistanis oppose America, 72 percent of Indonesians, and 71 percent of South Koreans.  All of these nations have benefited from US government aid.

A March 2003 Pew Global Attitudes Project found citizens viewing America unfavorably: 84% in Turkey, 74% in Spain, 71% in Germany, 68% in Russia, 67% in France.  This sample was drawn just before the US attacked Iraq.

This aggression generated some of the biggest anti-war rallies ever seen in Europe.  The biggest of the big occurred in London, Rome, and Madrid.  Aren’t England, Italy, and Spain supposed to be US allies?

Ivins (8/2002 column) wondered when we would vote on policy.  “Did anybody get to vote on ‘unilaterally determined pre-emptive self-defense?’  Whatever happened to the ‘no first strike policy?’ —— did anyone ever get to vote on that?  Has anyone studied the consequences of violating it?”

After sounding off repeatedly about “Germany over all!” Adolf Hitler felt threatened from several directions.  He did not wait, and attacked in accordance with his doctrine of pre-emption.

Ivins: “It’s apparent that our ally Saudi Arabia has a far stronger connection to Sept. 11 than our enemy Saddam Hussein, so attacking Saddam makes us look like hypocrites willing to sell out our foreign policy for oil.  That we’d also have to kill a whole lot of innocent Iraqis ——– should count for more than it probably does with all those hard-nosed Bush foreign policy advisers who have never seen war.”

Apparently we are not just a voice in the wilderness.  Amr Moussa was the Arab League’s secretary-general when he warned that an American invasion of Iraq would “open the gates of hell.”  Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was head of the Iranian government when he predicted a quagmire.

Right after the invasion in 2003 several top Iranian leaders offered to open a dialog with President Bush.  He said he doesn’t negotiate with the axis of evil.

Nichol (9/2002 column): “But even more important ——- is the moral claim.  A first-strike policy seems at odds with the way we understand ourselves.  Gary Cooper and John Wayne made the bad guys regret throwing the first punch.  They didn’t start the fight.”

“Initially it was thought necessary to attack Iraq as part of the war on terror.  But links to al-Qaeda have not been found (or they have been fabricated).  ——- that is unsurprising.  Osama bin Laden considered Saddam a secular ‘apostate, not worthy of being a fellow Muslim.’”  Saddam had been killing Islamic fundamentalists for years.

Nichol: “—— perhaps the world’s most highly regarded moral spokesman, Nelson Mandela, has castigated the US in atypically harsh terms.  In Mandela’s eyes, we pose the danger of becoming ‘bully to the world.’”  He believes the US does what it wants, come what may; so it is a threat to world peace.

In The Price of Loyalty, a book about Bush’s Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, author Suskind noted that: “Ideology is a lot easier, because you don’t have to know anything or search for anything.  You already know the answer to everything.  It’s not penetrable by facts.”

O’Neill believed that the force of a good idea could trump any political consideration.  This is why he fit into the Bush administration like a round peg in a square hole, and so the president fired him.

Bush also stonewalled the September 11^th Commission, before and after it was established.

Inquiries have shown that Iraqi citizens hate America more than they disliked Saddam’s oppression.  After what he has done to his people, this should make a citizen stop and think.

Iraqis perceive the US as pretending to want to help them while it really wants to help Israel and glom onto Iraqi oil.  They are acting on this perception.

Economist (9/2002): “But, as any simple Arab citizen will confirm, resentment of the superpower has never been a response to America itself.  Rather, it is a response to its policies: its throttling of Iraq, ——- above all, its generous bankrolling of Israel ($3 billion US taxpayer bucks each year).  ‘Take Israel out of the equation,’ says a businessman in Jeddah, ‘and, poof, we’ve basically never had a problem with America.’”

                                             THE REALITY AND THE URGENCY

It is time to say it like it is.  Many think that to be an economic power a country must project its strong military power abroad.  But these two types of power make up a trade-off.

Japan and Germany are both among the world’s primo economic powers, and only 75 years after being obliterated by allied nations.  After WWII the US and allies made sure that their constitutions severely limited military build-ups, so they diverted their previous military spending to building their economies.  (The current mess in Japan is political, not economic.)

Further reality shows that roughly 20 third world countries are trying to build or buy missiles that they cannot afford.  It is difficult to understand how the arms race can continue and still avoid wasting the world.

The military-industrial complex was built up during WWII to serve our urgent needs.  But we let it get away from us, and now it’s the reverse.  Alexander Hamilton warned of this.

We are the servants, trundling gourmet meals to the fat cats.  But, friends, it’s actually worse even than that: we are paying for these “meals!”

In searching for opportunities to grow, bureaucracy doesn’t limit itself to our homeland.  A tough-cop stance in the Middle East earns Washington insiders prestige, TV interviews, pieces on op-ed pages of prominent newspapers, consulting work, research grants.

In fact there are so many chips available to be collected, that Middle East terrorism has become a growth “industry.”  Many fat cats in Washington have never met a kleptocracy they didn’t like.

The reality is that our Department of “Defense” is a foreign war machine.  The pentagon refers to those hundreds of overseas bases as “forward defense.”  Today the pentagon has some form of military presence in 175 countries.  That is a helluva lot of “defense.”

Maybe they are kidding themselves.  They will soon know they are not fooling us.

The reality is that international trafficking in weapons must be okay for every nation.  We believe in free international trade, don’t we?  (It soon will be whether we believe in it or not.)

Further examination of reality reveals to us the extent of the damage done due to the cold war: unacceptable concentration of power in Washington; deception of the public; widespread secrecy; a mil-ind complex totally out of control; and far too much military power concentrated in the presidency.  PG19 elaborates.

Our nation’s founders specified a civilian as president for a very important reason.  Career Army General Eisenhower understood this.

But Bill Clinton and George Bush dodged active military service.  Therefore in a war-fighting environment they felt a need to act tough.

Starting a war is a piece of cake for a top leader whose ego needs feeding.  He knows he will not have to fight, kill and die in it.  Or pay for it.

All he needs is a huge stack of weapons and fighters.  Because the previous egomaniac left these hanging around unemployed this too is no problem.

Our last dose of reality concerns the CIA.  In 1989 this outfit reported that the economy of what was then East Germany was slightly larger than that of West Germany.  Nineteen eighty-nine, the year the Berlin Wall fell!

Friends, this is propaganda and disinformation.  We wonder whether the CIA was in there making notes when Adolf Hitler and the Kremlin perfected these arts.  Makes us wonder when we should begin calling the CIA the CYA (cover your arse).

THE AFTERMATH OF THE ATTACKS: And now we must deal with 9/11.  Today the CIA, FBI, and 11 other cloak-and-dagger agencies are all bloated, stale, and incompetent bureaucracies.  They are unable to protect us ordinary blokes from “terrorist” acts. 

Right after 9/11 we wondered how many of us noted the little bit of ink devoted to the appalling and tragic lack of competence among our 13 spy agencies.  We were not surprised, as we learned long ago that bureaucrats are experts at avoiding responsibility for even the grossest of mistakes.  What has us severely bent is cooperation of the pussycat media.

Today there is a lot of ink, because after some time to think about it the public started wondering what kind of services we are buying with the many billions of our money spent annually on spy agencies.  So, we can relax now, secure in the knowledge that there are thousands of spooks bent on keeping terrorists clear of our kids?

Think again.  Bureaucrats being bureaucrats, none that we know of were fired.  There is going on a great amount of shuffling around and much harrumphing.

The director of the CIA resigned, “for personal reasons.”  But the timing is no coincidence.  Since then we have been thru another director.

Ah, but hark!  The Jersey Girls went eyeball-to-eyeball with the BIG GOVERNMENT monster, and made it blink.  Friends, this IS news.  And it was published by the pussycats, which is encouraging.

These Sept. 11 widows forced formation of an independent commission to investigate just who screwed up to allow Mohammed Atta and company to successfully attack the world trade center and Pentagon.  They were unwilling to accept the age-old “diffusion of responsibility” gimmick that helps to define a bureaucracy.

In this the Jersey Girls prevailed against the almighty George Bush, who fought the idea of a panel.  Then he tried to stonewall its inquiry, and to stop his national security adviser from testifying before it.

Big Washington was feeling the heat, so Bush gathered together several agencies to create a monster bureaucracy called the Department of Homeland Security.  So now we can finally rest easily?  No, for the following reason.

Sadly, foreign policy is not about to change.  Predictably, the news media have jumped on the timeworn external threat bandwagon as the Economist reported (11/2001).  “—— concluding that ‘loose nukes’ are a first-order threat.  Although some would argue that bioterrorism is an equal or greater danger, both count as threats of the highest order.”

Friends, this is the same broken record being played once again.  It always works: keep the people hunkered down and dependent on Mighty Government to keep them safe (See Pocket Gofer 18 and the essay on “The External Threat Gimmick.”)

The kicker is that the tactic is working.  The dependency thing, that is; not our personal safety.  On Christmas day 2009 some character flew into Chicago with gun power hidden in his jock and no one knew it.

The “external” threat is being manipulated without our knowledge, for a tragic irony.  This is because the government’s hidden agenda before the attacks was faking us into accepting a police state in the name of protecting our freedom.

Sounds crazy?  Pocket Gofer 19 assures us that human nature drives top public officials in precisely this direction.  Without accountability (Pocket Gofer 7) this is the future in any country.  This part of human nature explains why there exists no government in today’s world that is a true democracy.

Did Osama bin Laden and his minions realize that they have inadvertently helped the American government to establish a police state?  We don’t think so.

Would anyone like to guess how the mil-ind complex reacted to 9/11?  The Economist (10/2001) glommed onto a copy of the pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) “—— hastily rewritten just after the attacks.

“The QDR concludes that America needs more of just about everything, especially communications and surveillance equipment, overseas bases, and long-range aircraft and ships.”

Who would believe the pentagon wants more money?  “Just about everything” surely suggests a blank check.

Will taxpayers be consulted about the amount of that check?  The answer we would get from the warriors fits the title of the Economist article: “Don’t even think about it.”  We guess the pentagon also does not want citizens to think; just to go on paying.

There’s more.  “Mr. Lawler of Boeing sees a new emphasis on precision weapons, surveillance gear such as UAVs, and mobility, given the global reach of anti-terrorism activities.

“But that doesn’t mean existing programs will be ditched.  ——- production of the $200 billion Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) —– the biggest “defense” project ever.

“There’s even a proposal to develop an unmanned fighter aircraft, ——.”  Ahem; what about that $200 billion for a bigger, faster, airborne, far more expensive, JSF, manned killing machine?

Or, maybe we shouldn’t ask, or even think about it?  Has anyone projected how many al Qaeda guys killed per JSF?

The Economist (9/2001) said, “The sad truth of human relations, however, is that you cannot get peace without fighting for it.”  Humans have been doing this for thousands of years.  The result ……?  We think a new and different approach is past due.

“For one observation by the pacifists is surely true: that the terrorists do want to provoke a reaction, and will carry on their attacks until they get one.”  If the reaction is military, and it was and is, this will only guarantee a continuation of the old, vicious, and unending eye-for-an-eye cycle that we mentioned above.  Violence only begets more violence in a vicious cycle.

“America defends its interests, —— just as other countries do.”  This is just plain false.  First, the government defends its interests, not those of its citizens.  Second, it does not do this just as other countries do, and thank God for this.

In April 2002 the Economist asked if NATO has a future.  It got an answer: “Mr. Bush called on NATO to be ready at Prague (meeting in November, 2002) to issue as many new invitations as possible.”

As commander-in-chief of the US military, President George is deeply plugged into the mil-ind complex.  Rookie nations joining the NATO club will need to gear up for mortal combat, so they will need massive quantities of weapons.

It is no coincidence that Mr. Bush presided over the world’s primo international weapons trafficker.  Business will pick up at a pace that matches the number of rookies accepted for membership.

“NATO must be ready to act where its vital security interests are at stake, whether in Europe ‘or some other corner of the world.’”  Good grief!  Here comes another blank check, just like in this country.  We need to be reminded that NATO’s 1947 charter specified only one enemy: the Soviet Union.  But this government vanished in 1991.

If this grim scenario were realized in the future, the entire world economy would be set back who knows how many decades.  At the end of WWII some smart patoot said he didn’t know what types of weapons will supply WWIII, but he did know those that will be used in WWIV: stone axes and clubs.

We turn now to a new insight which is as tragic as it is abominable. “After the fall of the

Soviet Union, the dream —– fully western power was revived in full force.  ‘Our

principles are clear and simple: supremacy of democracy, human rights and freedoms,

legal and moral standards,’ ——- Yeltsin told the UN in 1992, aligning the country with

America and Europe.

“But when Mr. Putin — by no means a believer ———- rose to power he still saw the

West as a model for Russia’s modernization ——— efforts to get along.  ———– said

all the right things after ——- 9/11.

“In return, say Russian critics ——- he got nothing but aggravation: ————.”  This was

 the pentagon bragging that America and the West won the cold war and, what was

unconscionable, the media cooperated.  Wartime ally USSR lost 20 million young men

during WWII compared with America’s loss of about 500,000.

We wrote in 1992 that the West did not win; rather, the USSR lost it as Russia’s

communism prevented efficient use and distribution of economic resources. 

“In a book on Russia-China relations, Mr. (critic Alexander) Lukin writes: ‘It was … the

West that destroyed the idea of creating a new system of global politics based on

 international law.  It was … the West that used its temporary omnipotence to create a

world in which powerful states could seize anything that was there for the taking,

destroy any borders and violate any treaties for the sake of a `good cause.`” 

Friends, we are ready to torch the pentagon.  When we think now of what could been,

we feel sick.  Our 30+ years of research and writing critiques of the central government

in Washington would not have been needed.  This is horrible. 

In 1986 President Ronald Reagan’s intuition led him to believe that Mikhail Gorbachev

 was a different kind of leader.  William Taubman wrote a book titled Gorbachev, which

we found to be very detailed and interesting, so we provide excerpts here.  Gorbachev:

“The ideal of people caring for the collective as well as themselves was belied by the

fact that so many officials cared for neither, drowning themselves in drink or engaging in

crime.  The image of collective leadership devoted to the common good clashed with

frantic competition to climb the greased pole. 

In an economy built on corruption, nearly every official could be charged with violating

 one law or another.  Most responded to this dilemma by hewing rigidly to the ritual

formula: ‘everything was going wonderfully ——–.”  This was part of Stalin’s legacy.

“The parallels between Soviet problems in Afghanistan in 1985 and the American

 dilemma there thirty years later are legion: corrupt Afghan leaders; unreliable

army; population increasingly alienated; enemy sanctuaries across the Pakistan border;

 national reconciliation not working; deadlines for departing seemingly fungible.”  Recall

our oft-repeated observation: The Afghans threw out the British in the 19^th century; the

Soviets in the 20^th; and now the Americans in the 21^st.  Those who cannot learn from

history are surely doomed to repeat it.  The pentagon springs to mind: a war machine.

“In March, Gorbachev wrote to HW Bush requesting $1.5 billion in loans with which to

 buy American grain.  But when Bush stalled, Gorbachev’s bitter reaction revealed how

much he really had in mind: ‘When they started the war in the Gulf,’ he told aides, they

 had no problem finding $100 billion.  Now, when it’s not a matter of going to war, but

assisting a new strategic partner, it becomes problematic.’ 

“Or, as he put it to foreign visitors: ‘Why wouldn’t they come up with $70 to $100 billion

to help perestroika in the USSR, something that is ten, a hundred times, more

important [than the Gulf war] to the world’s future?’”  Here we see a President who bows

to local political influence and not behaving like a world leader.  We suspect the

pentagon had its fingerprints on this one.  Friends, please be reminded that this pocket gofer is about America as a world citizen.

 “(Former British prime minister Maggie) Thatcher: If the West did not come to Gorbachev’s aid, ‘history will not forgive us’.  ———– at the UN General Assembly, where she had come as a private citizen, Thatcher urged anyone who would listen to compare the destruction of Nazism and the fall of communism.  ‘The former cost the world tens of millions of lives; the Soviet people accomplished the latter themselves, and almost bloodlessly.  So it would be a terrible mistake not to assist them.’”

“Why did Gorbachev turn so sharply against the West?  It was not he who changed, he would say, but the Western powers, particularly the United States, which abandoned cooperation with Moscow.”

“The truth is that Russia under Vladimir Putin largely abandoned Gorbachev’s path at home and abroad and return to its traditional, authoritarian, anti-Western norm.  But that only underlines how exceptional Gorbachev was as a Russian ruler and a world statesman.”     

The Economist 2/2015: “He (Putin) resides over a free-falling currency and a rapidly

shrinking economy.  ——-.  Judged against the objectives Vladimir Putin purported to

set on inheriting Russia’s presidency 15 years ago — prosperity, the rule of law,

westward integration — regarding him as a success might seem bleakly comical.” 

As the reader knows full well, we think this British newspaper publishes a lot of good

stuff in its American edition.  But —– WOW!  The editors surely blew it this time. 

Absent insights from Lukins’s book, Trump keeps rubbing Putin’s nose in it with

sanctions when he should be sending groups of economists to Moscow to help Russia

get with the program.  Damn!  Let’s circulate this gofer and enlighten him.

We beg the reader’s indulgence: one more from The Economist (just above): “—

Russian elite’s perception of the West as a threat to the very existence of the Russian

 state.”  So the Mighty East is ready to devour our children, but this same East is

equally convinced that the Mighty West is about to do the same thing. If this is some

kind of joke we are not laughing.

In 8/2017 The Economist, typical cold war dinosaur that is, titled its piece “Dangerous

Games.”   “By refusing to allow observers at its Zapad military exercise, Russia is

stoking fear and suspicion.”  Russia does this every four years.  It should not be a

serious problem; developed resources geared to monitoring the action will be used.

The Economist again (3/2018): “Boasting about nuclear weapons is something Vladimir

 Putin really enjoys.  In his annual state-of-the-nation —- five new weapons.  —.  In his

view America commands respect thru big guns; with this standard accepted abroad,

Russia must use the same criterion ——.”  Thinking citizens here can probably smell

the pentagon flexing its muscles.  Respect must be earned, not commanded.

We have learned from extensive research and visiting Russia that Putin does exercises

 like this one solely in order to get other nations to respect it.  There is no intent to

attack; the country is weak.  American generals know this, but they allow the pentagon

to continue with its scaremongering because top government officials wants us

 peasants to feel afraid and dependent on government to save us from certain ruin. 

And it is very good for the weapons business.

POSITIVE THINKING: To conclude from all the above, we are steamed.  However, it is absolutely essential that we don’t get violent in our feelings.  No street violence, and preferably no street demonstrations.  Let’s do this one the democratic way: through the ballot box.  In this way truth will prevail over violence; the pen will be mightier than the sword.

If we want to hit the streets let’s go out and distribute Pocket Gofer booklets and get people out to register and vote.  (But first we must clean up the voting process.)  We will fill our pockets, purses and mobile phones with gofers, and engage every citizen we can in free and open debate.  See Pocket Gofer 20.

Together we will build a democracy in every community and neighborhood.  We need only frustrate the establishment’s certain attempts to rig the outcome of any election.

We have seen that members of the establishment are masters at violence.  They understand the language of violence, so they will probably attempt to get our goat.  We won’t buy it; sorry.

If negative passion rules the hearts of men and women a life of misery is the unavoidable result.  Today we have a golden opportunity to enter the Age of Reason, and leave passions and wars behind us.

The United States of America can and should take the lead in this monumental endeavor.  It’s up to us.

It looks like we citizens are ready.  The proportion of us who thought that America should mind its own business and leave other countries to forage on their own rose from 30% in 2002 to 42% in 2005.

Laser-guided bombs and armed drones make poor engines of economic growth.  Getting serious about world peace means thinking in terms of building, not destroying economies.

In 3/2006 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice referred to “a balance of power that favors freedom.”  Anything that favors one side cannot be a balance.

Also, such a situation cannot involve military force.  That is what not only smothers freedom, it also destroys bodies, property, and spirits.

Cowards prepare for and make war.  It takes raw courage to step forward for peace.  We find this trait in short supply among politicians.  (Ike was not one of those.)

Is it courage or just plain foolishness to go for peace?  Doesn’t such a position leave us vulnerable to practically any tin pot dictator who wants a shot at us?

What is foolish is continuing the arms race.  This road leads straight to oblivion.

Finally there is Russia.  When President Bush proclaimed that his country would abandon the anti-missile START treaty, pundits by the dozen cranked up their word processors and put out a major alarm.  Sure as hell the Russians would take advantage of this wide opening and manufacture thousands more missiles with nuclear warheads.

Well, they didn’t.  Instead, they offered to reduce their inventory, and would the US provide some technical and financial help for them to do this?  Shocked, the government allowed as how it would.

Good riddance to Bush; there came a new president.  In April 2009 81% of citizens liked his goal of improving relations with the Muslim world.  Barack Obama gave a glowing speech in Cairo.  The world loved it.

The Nobel committee awarded him its peace prize.  Then he ramped up the war in Afghanistan with some 21,000 additional soldiers.

We will keep the faith, but right now we are confused.  Do the committee members feel like Obama made monkeys out of them?

In mid-February Obama selected a white house lawyer as a special envoy to an Islamic conference.  This was to show his concern for relations with Muslims.

We have a thought.  What if he were to stop killing them?

A RECOMMENDATION

Begin with courage.  The vicious cycle must be broken at some time.  If we wait longer the task will be doubly difficult due to human nature.

We will aim our courage at the right target.  This is the real enemy, right here at home.  See the essay “Government v Society.”

In the coming open society (PG 5) there will be almost no secrets.  If we combine this with a universal desire for it, we will be able to accomplish total elimination of all weapons of mass death and destruction.  That’s right, all of them, everywhere, and with no exceptions anywhere anytime.  The essay “Futility of War” explains.

The treaty that ended war with Japan specified a constitution that severely discouraged any preparation for future armed conflict.  Today its citizens still like this restriction. 

The Economist 6/2015: “——- proposed new laws —- violate the constitution.”  We suspect the pentagon as a war-making machine put pressure on the Japanese government.  We can’t recall seeing a bigger example of the age-old “What goes around comes around.”

There will be cheaters of course.  Let’s say some devious plotters in a remote warehouse or piece of desert or forest are building forbidden weapons.  Everyone is sensitive to this activity, so pretty soon someone notices something suspicious.

Unobserved, he/she whips out a cell phone, calls the appropriate authority by bouncing a signal off a satellite flying 15 miles up in the sky, and reports the location.  A satellite equipped with cameras may also pick up suspicious activity and pinpoint its location.

It might take 4-7 years to “search and destroy” all WMDD.  During this time, if we annually spent just five percent of the resources currently being wasted on weapons and war we would have the technology for future foolproof detection.

The US and other national governments can sign as many arms control treaties such as NPTs, MTCRs, STARTs, etc. as they want. The officials who do the signing are world “leaders.” They are the same ones who have been stoking the arms race for 60 years.

The results speak for themselves. If we want to stop paying for this lunacy we must grab the bull by the horns.

All we need to do is get real, and get together. This is where the pocket gofers come in: they will help us to get organized.

A PREFERRED ROLE FOR THE UN: As we move into an economic world (Age of Reason) we need guidance from some organization that is not one single government, however militarily or economically powerful.  The logical candidate is the United Nations, established 75 years ago to do this very thing.

One nation cannot dictate world peace, simply because it is a nation and hence the cause of envy and resentment among other nations.  World peace cannot be dictated by anyone or group, but it can be sold by an organization like the UN.

If all nations were united under the flag of the UN, who would toss a missile even if he could build one undetected?  Every other member would be all over him right now.  This includes America, who would be a bona fide citizen of the world in its role as a member.

Knowing this, a bad guy would not consider such an act of aggression.  If he has a legitimate bitch he can bring it up before the UN General Assembly.

This is the democratic way.  The UN would function far better after America stopped bullying it.  See PG12.

Citizens of nearly all of the other 200 or so countries of the world still look to the US for leadership.  If we were to join the UN as a citizen, others would follow our lead.  On the other hand, if our government continues shooting up the world or threatening the same ………..

A DIFFERENT AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: Our vision of the US as a world citizen has us acting as we feel: a warm, concerned, caring member of the world community, anxious to help other peoples to help themselves toward better lives.  Economics and human nature will ensure that they return the compliment.  This is the way to establish mutual trust, through being tolerant of differences and reaching out in friendship.

We will participate actively and wholeheartedly in UN discussions and debates, voicing our opinions, listening to those of others, and accepting votes when they don’t go our way.  We will participate as requested in peacekeeping activities directed by a secretary-general, even if he/she is not a citizen of our country.

Finally, we will see that deliberations in the General Assembly will replace bombs and missiles in killing fields.  Friends, we mean we citizens; not the government as it is currently operating.

Because we believe in democracy we would support the UN in its democratic efforts to provide guidance to the nations of the world.  We would miss not a vote, nor an opportunity to campaign on behalf of our ideas.

We would expect nothing less from our friends as they represent the interests of other nations.  This can and will work because the overriding common interest among all nations is a world free from the horrendous scourge of war.

Prestowitz: “Nations are very much like individuals.  More than desire for material gain or fear or love, they are driven by a craving for dignity and respect, ———— just as valuable as the next person or country.”

He elaborated: “An America that stressed its tolerance rather than its might, its tradition of open inquiry rather than its way of life, and that asked for God’s blessing on all the world’s people and not just its own, would be the America the world desperately wants.”

We would know that in the Age of Reason the new battlefield is one of ideas, principles, and policies.  We would cheer the merchant as he/she replaces the warrior.  We would put our old warhorses out to pasture; they have become very long in the tooth.

Eisenhower stated that “—— the US never lost a soldier or a foot of ground in my administration.  We kept the peace.  People asked how it happened —— by God, it didn’t just happen, I’ll tell you that.”

Ambrose’s book: “What Eisenhower had done best was managing crises.  The crisis with Syngman Rhee in early 1953, and —— with the Chinese communists over the POW issue and the armistice; —— Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and over Quemoy —— 1955; the Hungarian and Suez crises of 1956; the Sputnik and Little Rock —— 1957; ——-; the Berlin crisis of 1959; and U-2 crisis of 1960 ——-.

“—— managed each one without increasing defense spending, without frightening people half out of their wits.  He downplayed each one, insisted that a solution could be found, and then found one.  It was a magnificent performance.”

It was also a tribute to the role of wisdom, once sufficient time had passed for passions to cool and reason to influence thinking.  Contrast this with GW Bush’s response to 9/11.

Eliot Cohen in his book Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in Wartime commented about one of WWII’s greatest.  “Winston Churchill, a figure from the heart of the establishment who despised establishment thinking, was always prepared to lend an ear to mavericks, eccentrics and out-of-the-box thinkers, as a counterweight to his immediate military advisers for whom he had a healthy disrespect.

“‘I have to wage modern war with ancient weapons,’ was one of his famously caustic observations as he watched his chiefs of staff file out of a meeting.”  Friends, this is PG17-style leadership.

CONCLUSION

What kind of society would sweat blood over the execution of a possibly innocent citizen convicted of murder, and at the same time would launch a missile that kills dozens of innocent civilians, and this without a second thought?  And attacks a sovereign nation because it might have missiles which, if possessed, might do the same thing?

Economist 8/2003: “What other country divides the world up into five military commands with four-star generals to match, keeps several hundred thousand of its legionnaires on active duty in 137 countries —— and is not afraid to use them?”

No one can make war in the name of peace and expect peace on earth and good will toward men and women.  Nukes have made big wars no longer feasible.  Small wars have no end, as guerrillas take to the hills, jungles or buildings with their sophisticated and portable weapons (also getting cheaper) and subsist on the sympathies of local peoples.

Their lives become totally and obsessively focused on just one objective: revenge.  Passion rules their lives.  What a colossal pity!  What misery!

We must therefore conclude that armed conflict is no longer a feasible option for settling any international dispute.  For the same reasons it isn’t worth a damn in cases of domestic difficulties.

“There will always be an external threat.”  Hasn’t it always been so?  True, but we are entering a new age, where it need not be so.

This bit of conventional wisdom has condemned our ancestors and us to a continuing arms race.  We believe that whenever wisdom becomes conventional it is no longer wisdom and should be questioned.

International trafficking in weapons dramatically worsens the arms race.  Not only this.  It spreads death, destruction, and misery around very large parts of Planet Earth.  To repeat: weapons drive conflict, not the reverse.

In 1900 casualties of warfare were about 10 percent noncombatants (women, children, old men).  Today it’s close to 90 percent.

Friends, this is BAD NEWS.  Any killing is bad, but these innocent people only want to stay clear of trouble.

In a democracy the president or secretary-general does not hold the most powerful job.  In a democracy power exists in good ideas that are created through spirited and constructive criticism by citizens of a constant flow of new ideas that have yet to prove themselves.

This is why in a democracy “the pen is mightier than the sword.”  (See PG 13.)  We update this old saying by substituting: “The word processor is mightier than the nuke.”

Career warriors in the pentagon understand little besides weapons and war.  Have we citizens the courage to confront these men nonviolently, offering them truth in the place of war?

We could bring Thomas Jefferson along (paraphrased): “—— that truth is mighty and a sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless disarmed of her natural weapons, such as free and open discussion and debate.”

Joseph Galloway (News & Observer 7/19/09): “Presidents right up to today’s like to surround ——– men whose eagerness to find war the answer to most problems often grows in direct proportion to their lack of experience in uniform or combat.  This small history lesson can be read as a cautionary tale to —– Obama’s team ——-.”

We think President Obama did some good when he re-opened diplomatic relations with Cuba.  An American embargo since 1961 has caused huge grief among many and with no positive results to justify this sadness.  It continued for decades due to cold war dinosaurs in the white house and pentagon.

The Economist 3/2016: “He is betting that engagement with one of America’s neighbors will do more than isolation to bring its communist regime to an end. 

“Mr. Obama’s bet is the right one; Trump’s cancelation was a mistake.  But not just him; we quote here from author Charles Adams: “If you leave it alone, communism will eventually die.  If you attack and harass it, you give it a strength that it would otherwise never possess.”

Trump did not stop there.  All know we are a nation of immigrants.  That said, due to a series of errors by the congress our situation today is a bucket of worms.

Obama attempted to ameliorate this by creating DACA (Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals).  Well, true to his promise to negate everything Obama did, Trump torpedoed it.  Beneficiaries were known as “dreamers.”  Many had grown up over the past 2-3 decades, so exposing these contributing “citizens” to deportation would be incredibly counter-productive.

In a world torn by strife any gain by a country must be at the expense of one or more others.  But we have shown that everyone loses except members of the elite military-industrial complex.

In an economic world every player can be a winner.  This is because world wealth can and does increase through innovations, new businesses, free markets, and free international trade and investment.

And wealth spreads widely while seeking its most efficient uses.  If the pie keeps growing bigger, more and more companies and (indirectly) countries can have a larger piece without taking from the next one.

Winston Churchill on trade: “… both the selling and the buying —— were profitable to us; that what we sold —– profit, —– what we bought, —– worth our while to buy, and —– turn it to advantage.

“And in this way commerce is utterly different from war, so that the ideas —– of the one should never be applied to the other; for in trade, like the quality of mercy, are twice blessed, and confer a benefit on both parties.”

The Economist (11/2016) asks whether China is coming around.  “——– growing optimism in Beijing — if Mr. Trump is serious about jobs and growth at home, he will end up in favor of engagement and trade.  Put simply, protectionism is inconsistent with ‘Make America Great Again.’”

Warriors don’t want to hear this, especially when it comes from another warrior like Churchill or Eisenhower.  It tells us that war is a double negative, while free international trade is a double positive.  It also strongly suggests that the world is finally ready to put the era of conquest and plunder behind it, and move forward to the Age of Reason.

Let us search among us for leaders.  We want leaders who will dedicate their talents and energies to public service.  Leaders who will work actively with us in order to ascertain our will on every issue, and help us act on it.  Leaders who will not boss us (PG 17).

Then we will be active, concerned, contributing citizens.  Then we can and will show the world how to do and cooperate with it in the doing, as we will benefit right along with it and learn from it.  See PG6.

President Eisenhower: “I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments.  Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”  One of these days — has that day arrived?

What is needed is actually simple: Bring democracy into foreign relations.  But the kicker lies in the doing.  This takes courage.

A reminder from Shevardnadze: “The productivity of truth largely depends on society’s readiness to demand it, and on the state of the hearts and minds of the people who find the courage to disseminate the true word (our emphasis).”  See PG21.

With courage in our hearts and truth in our minds we will again stand tall.

                                                                                                               —— PUBLIUS II

TITLES OF OTHER POCKET GOFERS WHICH WE CAN DIG INTO,

DISCUSS, CRITICIZE, AND ACT ON:

PG 1 – ON HEALTH AND FITNESS IN THE USA

PG 2 – ON VOLUNTEERISM

PG 3 – ON THE CAREER POLITICIAN IN A DEMOCRACY

PG 4 – ON THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH TO GETTING THINGS DONE

PG 5 – ON THE COMING OPEN SOCIETY

PG 6 – ON MAKING A CONTRIBUTION

PG 7 – ON CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

PG 8 – ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESS AND THE PHANTOM

PG 9 – IT’S ALL IN THE FAMILY

PG 10 – ON EDUCATION IN THE USA

PG 12 – ON THE UN AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

PG 13 – ON PERSONAL POWER AND IDEAS

PG 14 – ON RESPECT FOR TAXPAYERS’ MONEY

PG 15 – ON BIG, SMALL, AND GOOD GOVERNMENT

PG 16 – ON DEMOCRACY AND OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

PG 17 – ON LEADERSHIP IN A DEMOCRACY

PG 18 – ON WAR, WEAPONS, AND PEACE

PG 19 – ON THE GRAND DECEPTION

PG 20 – ON LIFE IN A DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY

PG 21 – PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONSTITUTION