Militarism/Nationalism/Patriotism

[azmat]

MILITARISM: This subject does not seem to get much attention. In my uneducated and humble opinion, it is the third dimension of the real axis-of-evil (i.e. Dictators, Religious fanatics and the Military high brass). Military establishments in most countries would never want peace & harmony among the people, that would be self-defeating.

Patriotism is arguably not an evil, however, when the professional soldiers are glorified and portrayed as
and Saviour's, their families start believing that.
To me, a killer is a killer. Nothing more.
Legalized or not, in the name of your country, how can you kill. I wonder what Christianity and Islam and Judaism have to say to justify such inhumanity that killed over 200 million people in the last century alone.

Can we discuss this, what is the place of PATRIOTISM in the scope of religion and humanity.
Soldiers, U.S. or otherwise, is their glorification justifiable? They are brain-washed and deluded and willing to eradicate humanity from the face of planet. Do they deserve society's platitudes.

How sick are we?

[gilbert]

So true sir:
All is vanity of vanitys says the preacher.(king Solomon).Patriotism is of the world and for the world.I am a American.Would I die for my country? I sure would.Is it justified? Under the law of conscious. I would think if I was in the right. I have a right to defend my dignity with sword or vocals. Is it right to kill? Only if I can't win my consitutent's heart. My motto is live and let live. Deny yourself nothing. For all will parish in this world like the grass. But remember all will be brought to conscious on judgement day.
In America we have a very short time to be patriotic these days anyway.Before the "Novus Ordo Secrotum" take over. New Orleans, New York 911, Californina earthquake are all in the line off the zoned ,regional new world order. Our new buddies will be the Irish,Chinese and Russian soldier boys who will do the honor to protect us from ourselfs. lol. We shall elcome them with open arms.And if they hurt anyone off our little ones. fire and brimstone will rain from the heavens.)Shalom..

[jay paulson]

02 october


Not much of a discussion here—although a lot of people seem to look, then run.

I’ll just say a few words, see what happens.

Patriots= brain washed, very thoroughly conditioned individuals. It comes to them “naturally”—family, church, school. As American as apple pie and mom and mcdonald’s hamburgers and disneyland. Best thing for patriots to do is not to think.

Killers=killers don’t exist amongst civilized human beings.

Killing machine= 1) unfortunate individual, coerced or cajoled into armed forces; can be a good husband/wife and father/mother when out of uniform; learns all the techniques of killing ,maiming and torturing and then becomes an excellent, expendable machine; quite often, after leaving “tour of duty” goes insane or berserk. (Note: they’re working to produce pure robotic ones, that won’t go berserk.)

Killing machine=2)the politician, general or dictator who is in charge of collecting and distributing killing machines(1); if victorious, gets medals and much hommage; if country “loses the war” (the bankers always win) may be tried for war crimes. Doesn't often, otherwise, risk his/her skin.

[michelle]

Jay,

I've been meeting many military wives whose husbands have become extremely violent.
They have ended their marriages for the safety of themselves and their children. Many have mentioned how sick their mates were because of all the vaccines they were given.

Did you read the story of the mother who was worried about her daughter's mental condition after returning from war? She had isolated herself in her apartment and when her mother finally got in, the daughter had painted her whole body black.

I shudder to think what type of beings are created now and how they will react in society after they return home. The news has been full of stories of shootings and violent beatings done by these unfortunate 'creations' after they came home.

Killing another does not come naturally to mankind. I believe it was during the Vietnam War when the military began using human forms for target practice. Previously standard bullseye
targets were used. After the introduction of human type targets, kills by soldiers increased
exponentially.

My father, WWII veteran, prisoner of war--Germany, is still having flashbacks. My brothers who have gone to war never speak of it; one is mentally ill. And the VA continues to shuck their responsibility for treatment, including mental treatment, of veterans.

[jay paulson]

03oct

Yes, Michelle, there's a lot of sadness for returned veterans and their loved ones.
I’ve had close friends return from the wars—and from socalled “peacekeeping”actions—with damaged pysches and emotions.

Incidentally, in regard to the present day militarism, it's interesting that the US is beginning to rely more and more on mercenaries. Not only the private security companies in Iraq—and in New Orleans—but all those "volunteers" who are non citizens (illegal aliens, mostly)who are promised citizenship upon successfully living through their enlistment. And foreign troops helping to police New Orleans.

Of course there’s no military draft—yet. Probably because of memory of the Vietnam era Hell-No-We-Won't-Go!! demonstrations, and the flight to Canada of deserters and draftees. But Canada is no longer a haven for draft resistors and deserters--it's becoming more and more a mouthpiece and puppet of the US. (To help Canadians “understand” armed minutemen are planning to patrol parts of the US-Canada border.) So when the screws tighten--as they undoubtedly will-- there'll probably be some kind on involuntary servitude for the Americans to bear.

But we know that some day human civilizations will have civilized humans dwelling within their borders.

[michelle]

Jay,
On the subject of mercenaries, you might be interested in listening to this from 'This American Life':

Today's show is devoted to just one story. Contributing Editor Nancy Updike went to Iraq to try to figure out what it's like to be a private citizen working in the middle of a war zone. Private contractors are a part of this war in unprecedented numbers, but we don't know that much about the people doing these jobs – why they chose to come to Iraq, and what they're seeing that we can't.

Prologue. This American Life host Ira Glass talks about one thing you probably haven't heard about the occupational hazards of working in Iraq: since you work every single day, you never know what day of the week it actually is. (3 minutes)

Act One. Airport. The private security guys (from a company called Custer Battles) who guard Baghdad International Airport usually get along fine with the U.S. military personnel stationed there – except when Nancy happened to be taping, and a huge fight broke out. (6 minutes)

Act Two. Hank. Hank, a former military man, was hired by Custer Battles to clean up one of its other Iraq operations, guarding businessmen. He has a very clear idea of who he wants working for him: "flat-bellied, steely-eyed professionals." Instead, he's trying to tighten up a outfit whose workers once engaged in an extended firefight at a Baghdad hotel – against each other. (17 minutes)

Act Three. Green Zone. The Green Zone is where the Coalition Provisional Authority has set up its headquarters, and the former seat of Saddam Hussein's government. Nancy ends up at a hidden restaurant by a helipad, with workers for Fluor Corporation, who have just arrived in Iraq to fix power plants. (4 minutes)

Act Four. Electricity. On their way out to a power plant, Nancy and Lee, a supervisor for Fluor in Iraq, get shot at by men in a BMW. When they finally get to the plant, Nancy learns why it's been so difficult to get power plants running again in the country. (8 minutes)

Act Five. Karen. Karen Hahn, who works for Custer Battles at the airport, started out there screening women passengers – and learned a lot from their handbags. Unlike most people Nancy met in Iraq, Karen is not a former military person, she doesn't work with guns or big machines, and she's never been happier in her life. (4 minutes)

Act Six. Cops. Hundred of Iraqi police officers have been killed since the United States invaded Iraq. One Boston cop, Jerry Burke, is trying to keep them on the job, and train them in Western police practices. Besides rogue officers, not having enough guns and bullet-proof vests, and men refusing to go on patrols, it's going OK. He's also having a hard time setting up his driver with his translator. (11 minutes)

Act Seven. Hank Redux Nancy finally gets Hank, the Custer Battles employee, to answer the question of whether he ever has any reservations about his mission – or the country's mission – in Iraq. (3 minutes)

NOTE: To get to "I'm From the Private Sector and I'm Here to Help", click on at left column Complete Archive, then click 2005 shows, then, 6/17 I'm From The Private Sector and I'm Here to Help.... should get you there
www.thisamericanlife.org/

[jay paulson]

Thanks Michelle but no thanks--

"Prologue. This American Life host Ira Glass talks about one thing you probably haven't heard about the occupational hazards of working in Iraq: since you work every single day, you never know what day of the week..."

Obviously the kind of obscene soap opera Americans are addicted to.

Too bad they don't want to hear about the hazards of being an Iraqi in Iraq, how for more than a decade Americans have been murdering Iraqis--especially children and the unborn...Is it worth it?--Ask Madelaine Albright.

[michelle]

Hey Jay,
A soap opera, I wouldn't call it that. It depends on what you hear in the broadcast. Like how
employees of private contractors are making $8,000 to $10,000 a month to work on military vehicles compared to about $1,200 per month for the same job done by military personnel.
Interesting if you're concerned about the money being spent.

Or how they try to impose American culture on the Iraqis because they think it's a better way to be. Can't remember it all, it was this past summer I listened to it. But it gave me an idea of who and what type of person would willingly go and do our government's dirty work for a price.

Sincerely,
Michelle

[jay paulson]

05oct

"soap opera"—


okay michelle--

of course i could be wrong

all i meant was that this sounds like the kind of thing the establishment puts out to amuse and entertain peeople

to make them think that—no, not even to make them think, but to make them emote—
to make them feel good that they’re doing something

disinformation can takes many many forms it seems to me


peace...

jay

[jay paulson]

If you want to find out when and why martial law is going to be declared
in the fascist states of america, read the following :

Global Research Feature Article
Martial Law and the Avian Flu Pandemic
by Michel Chossudovsky
October 4, 2005

at:
GlobalResearch.ca

[jay paulson]

Read the following and then say hello to the American Military Dictatorship!:


News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government
07 October 2005
www.legitgov.org/
www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Pentagon Seeks Leeway to Approach Citizens 07 Oct 2005 Attempting to loosen decades-old restrictions, the Pentagon is asking Congress to allow its intelligence agents to go undercover when they approach Americans who may have useful [?!?] national-security information, rather than identifying themselves as intelligence operatives. The provision found in a wide-ranging intelligence bill would give the Defense Intelligence Agency new latitude to meet U.S. citizens without pulling out their DIA badges and later sending a formal notice of their rights under the landmark 1974 Privacy Act.

Pentagon seeks US informants on insurgencies 07 Oct 2005 Pentagon officials said on Friday they could fight 'insurgencies' in Iraq and Afghanistan more effectively if Congress would allow intelligence operatives to hide their identities from potential informants in the U.S. Muslim population. Civil liberties advocates say the Pentagon is simply using troubles abroad to reacquire domestic espionage powers that Congress revoked in the wake of Vietnam-era abuses.

[michelle]

Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski
January 27, 2006

In July, 2003, Karen Kwiatkowski retired as a lieutenant colonel from the U.S. Air Force, having served since 1978. From May, 2002, to February, 2003, Karen Kwiatkowski served in the Pentagon’s Near East and South Asia directorate (NESA). Dr. Kwiatkowski presently teaches at James Madison University, and writes regularly for MilitaryWeek.com.

Interviewed by Omar Khan for www.dahrjamailiraq.com, read the interview of Dr. Kwiatkowski's blistering and revealing comments about the neo-conservatives, Bolsheviks, fascism and the Bush Administration agenda in Iraq and beyond.

OK: Could you say something about your reasons for joining the Air Force some 20 years ago?

KK: Basically, they gave me a full ROTC scholarship, and I needed money to go to college. That was the deal. I was happy to do it actually. I had applied for navy and army, and the one that I got was Air Force.

My dad had served in the navy for 4 years in, I guess, the late 50s. And he used to always talk about how great the military was. So we were pretty disposed to the military, but I joined the Air Force because they’re the ones that coughed up the money for college.

OK: So military service has been a tradition in your family for at least two generations.

KK: It’s definitely looked highly upon in my family. Actually, I have two brothers, both—one was for his career in the navy, just retired. The other was in the marines for about seven or eight years.

OK: What do you mean when you’ve elsewhere referred to the military as an apolitical institution?

KK: When I refer to the military as apolitical, that’s because, as an institution, it’s supposed to be. But it’s kind of political in the sense that if you’re what’s called a conservative—usually you’re in good company when you’re in the military. You’re around a lot of people that care about some of those basic things. So there’s that aspect. But technically apolitical.

We swear an oath to the constitution—to defend it against enemies, both foreign and domestic. They’re words, but every time you get promoted you have to retake the oath. So it does make you think about the constitution. You’re reminded of it in a way that other people in other jobs are not reminded of it. So we have this constant idea—it’s kind of reinforced to us throughout our careers: what we’re supposed to be doing, what we’re all about.

OK: How did you see whistleblowing in terms of these values?

KK: You’re oath is not to a political party, it’s not to an institution, but to an idea: to a constitutional republic. So we have a president who serves for 4-8 years.

And he has—according to the constitution—limited duties that he takes care of. We have a legislature; and a judiciary. So if you care about those things, and you’re out to preserve that balance—to respect that balance rather than persons—you don’t think of it as whistleblowing, you think of it as, you know, my loyalty is to what is right, to how these things are supposed to work. I was working pretty closely with those who lied to the American people into buying an unnecessary war, an illegal war, I think. But my loyalty is not to those people—whether those people are the president, Republican or Democrat, whether those people political appointees, whether those people are civil servants. The loyalty is to the system, and the system is set up in such a way to prevent stupid things from happening in foreign policy.

OK: What do you mean when you characterize neoconservatism as a dead philosophy of anticommunism?

KK: In 2002, before I was actually working with people doing Near East policy and seeing and meeting these neoconservatives—I didn’t even know what a neoconservative was. I began to look at who these individuals were, what they were doing before in our government, and what they cared about politically. These are the same guys that are responsible for Iran-Contra. They don’t care about the law. They are liberals at home—very much not a traditional conservative political perspective domestically, but closer to the more Social Democratic approach, somewhat like our Democratic party used to be, domestically; but, in terms of foreign policy, very hawkish, extremely hawkish, extremely aggressive—black and white, murder, death, kill basically. I hate to say that, but that’s what it is: they have to die so we can live. Intervention oriented foreign policy, which is not conservative either. This is kind of the political home of neoconservatives.

The Cold War was perfect for this crowd; and this crowd made their political bones during that time. These guys were the hardcore anticommunists even within the Reagan administration. Richard Perle actually left the administration in 1986 based on Reagan’s overtures and receptivity to Gorbachev. Perle, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Rumsfeld, Cheney—all these guys, though not always in the exact same way, had a place in the Reagan administration as hardline hawks, even though many of them were not Republicans. In fact Richard Perle to this day is a registered Democrat.

OK: What is your view of the legacy to which the neocons are heirs?

KK: The intellectual fathers of neoconservatism—what shapes their approach internationally—are the Bolsheviks. International revolution, international change—radical change, global revolution. And these same terms, these same ideas—of international change, revolution, transformation—these are the words of Michael Ledeen and some of the other articulators of neoconservatism. And the actual people, and they’re not ashamed to really say this, but guys like Irving Crystal and other intellectuals of the 30s had actually been Bolsheviks.

One of the characterizations of neocons today is that they are neo-Jacobins—philosophically, this idea that people are the same, all want the same thing, and should have the same thing. That ‘same thing’ in a modern neoconservative view is this idea of ‘democracy.’ But is it really democracy that they want, or is democracy simply a trojan horse. Certainly for Iraq, George Bush has been left with one story as to why we went in

If they had democracy, they’d take a vote, and we’d be kicked out of there immediately.

Certainly we don’t want them to have democracy, because then they’ll make us leave. So it’s unclear that democracy is a goal, but that’s what they talk about: the God of Democracy. So it’s not like Trotskyism in the sense that they’re not advocating global communism but they are advocating universal, radical—and in effect, catastrophic—change. And this is kind of a clear thread for many years.

So the neoconservatives are not new; during the Reagan era, the ‘Cold War’ was their vehicle for credibility—this evil enemy that we must face, or else the end of the world is coming. They cannot work without this global enemy, almost a kind of class warfare. You can’t just have a mere enemy; it has to be a monstrous enemy, something that can destroy us. They’ve found that in, or rather cultivated it, in what is called ‘Islamic Fascism.’ Unfortunately this doesn’t exist. No one advocates it. No one articulates it. In the 1930s, Hitler had fascism and he talked about it. Islamic Fascism is a made up thing. . But it doesn’t matter: what matters is that it’s useful in generating fear, and serves that same larger purpose—providing a platform from which to operate.

Now you can follow the money too. The neocon philosophy provides a construct within which we can—‘we,’ being the establishment, corporatism—can move. So you have this construct that talks of ‘fear’ ‘protection,’ ‘security.’ Which are used to advocate intervention—intervention for security, what Iraq was effectively sold as: ‘intervention for American security.’

OK: Please say a little bit about your experience in the Pentagon.

KK: I worked four and a half years for the Pentagon. Between May of 2002 and March of 2003, I worked in Near East South Asia (NESA) bureau in the Pentagon, which worked alongside The Office of Special Plans (OSP)—a group of twenty-five people or so in August 2002—under Bill Luti. It was dissolved in August 2003—about four months after the invasion and the mission accomplished declaration by the president.

Its job had been done.

The whole idea with Iraq was to destroy Iraq. It was not to rebuild it, turn it into a democracy. It was simply to take a country that had no navy, no airforce, and a very small—you know—fourth rate army and turn it into a country with no navy, no airforce, and no army. We did this, and OSP did its part in promoting that. Once it was done there was no need for OSP.

One of the amenities with which we were provided as staff officers were talking points—Saddam Hussein, WMD, and terrorism. If there is anything that you’d need to research on Iraq, you’d only need to take verbatim from the latest version of what OSP had produced on any one of these talking points. These same bullet points would of course be in presidential speeches. I can only assume—since they were producing them for us, on a very routine basis—I can only assume that OSP was the creative entity here in doing that.

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had a staff of 6 or 7 people dedicated intelligence people who had no other job than to support our boss, Bill Luti (Deputy under NESA and OSP). Their only job was to answer Bill Luti’s questions and provide Bill Luti with the intelligence that the intelligence community had, particularly DIA intelligence. So the means by which a policy receives its information was perverted. It may have been perverted before then, but I know that it was perverted in the time that I was there, from May 2002 to March 2003. The DIA people were told: ‘no this is not what I want to hear, go back and do a better job’

This is what I saw as an observer. Not as a person inside DIA. But I can tell you, I talked to these guys—who’d come over to brief the lower level people on a routine basis:

They were always under pressure. OSP saying, ‘I don’t need that, give me what I need,’ and DIA saying, ‘I can’t give you something that doesn’t exist.’

I actually explained this to the Senate staffers during the Phase I investigation of intelligence. They were like: oh, whatever. Basically unwilling to entertain the possibility. But there was clearly a huge contempt for information; what they did, instead was to ask for exactly what they wanted to hear, probably about 95% of which was entirely false.

Anyone who talked of sanctions and continual bombing of Iraq over a dozen years, or said that there’s no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Pentagon in 2002 was going to be told: I don’t want to hear that, go back and find me something I can use. And if you didn’t do that, like in the case of the DIA guy, who went back and looked and couldn’t find anything, he was then disinvited from meetings. Bill Luti had one briefing on Weapons of Mass Destruction, supposed to be prepared by the DIA—had been historically prepared by the DIA guy, had been historically prepared by the DIA guy. He didn’t like the way the DIA guy had done it, so transferred the responsibility to a policy office, that of course exaggerated, presented a threat that didn’t exist. But this made everybody happy, since Americans were getting excited for war. A noble lie taken as far as it can go.

OK: How does this fit into what you’ve called ‘grand plans’ that today ‘walk the corridors of the Pentagon’?

KK: This global enemy—‘Islamic fascism,’ ‘Islamic terrorism,’ or whatever it is—enables war in the Mideast. So the ‘grand plan’ is a Mideast transformation plan, which guys like Michael Ledeen have been talking about for a long time. Since we have this apocalyptic enemy, it’s either us or them. So in Iraq: the money goes for ‘security’— American bases, and police power to defend those bases. The things we’ve destroyed we have not rebuilt or fixed. The things that we have protected have been the Oil Ministry and the Finance Ministry. This is from the very beginning. Those bases in Iraq will be how we deal with (intimidate) the rest of the Middle East. Keep those other countries in line—politically, economically, and in every other way. This is clearly articulated, for example, in “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” actually written for Netanyahu: Iraq must first be changed, and from there we will be able to deal with our enemies—primarily, Syrians and Iranians. But this has nothing to do with America, or with American interests—in my opinion, anyway. Who benefits from this kind of foreign policy? This needs to become a topic that can be publicly discussed. If we can’t talk about it, then we shouldn’t be paying for it. What are they forecasting: something like 2 trillion dollars, or something, for this war? This is not an insignificant amount of money. So this question—Who benefits from this kind of foreign policy?—needs to become a topic that can be publicly discussed.

tinyurl.com/c4kl2

[michelle]

Pentagon spells out strategy for global military aggression
By Bill Van Auken
9 February 2006

Only days before the Bush administration submitted its fiscal 2007 budget, which calls for a major increase in military spending, the Pentagon sent Congress a long-term strategy document that makes clear Washington’s intentions to use the additional billions to wage an aggressive campaign of global militarism.

Envisioned in the document, the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), is a vaguely defined “long war” that will involve the use of military power all over the globe to suppress challenges to US interests both from popular insurgencies and geo-strategic rivals. In particular, the document singles out China as a potential military competitor that must be deterred.

President Bush’s budget calls for a 7 percent hike in military spending, to reach a total of $440 billion. The proposed increase has been coupled with calls for sweeping cuts in such core entitlement programs as Medicare and Medicaid.

With the increase, combined with tens of billions of dollars more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as funds separately allotted to the Energy Department to maintain America’s nuclear arsenal, US military spending will climb well above the half-trillion-dollar mark in the coming year. This is more than the amount spent by all other countries combined, accounting for more than half of the estimated $1 trillion in worldwide arms expenditures.

Read the rest:
www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/pent-f09.shtml

[michelle]

WHY WE FIGHT

Hello All:

Has anyone seen this film? It answers so many questions! But most importantly, it should also raise the question, "How do we release ourselves from the iron grip of the Military Industrial Complex?". In Eisenhower's time, and until recently, the MIC consisted of the arms industry, the Pentagon, and Congress [has anyone put together just how many government reps own stock in weapons suppliers?]. Now included in the MIC are think tanks which come up with where to wage war and the rationalization for these wars. None of these people are, in any way, held accountable to the people of the United States.

We exhaust our efforts fighting the government; the MIC is our government. And our subgovernment is all corporations following in step behind the MIC bringing their much wanted [?] products only an American style democracy can deliver. But first on the list is corporate rebuilding of smashed infrastructures. Ralph Nader reported that Iraq citizens are not being given any share of the jobs in the rebuilding of their own country.

We the people, the true Americans here, have not created this global expansionist policy. It has been vomited onto the world by a conglomerate of elitists; a military elite, an industrial elite, a banking elite, a labor elite, an academic elite, and a boot licking government who belong to one of these groups, make money from them, or who are simply insane enough to think this is good for their country, god, and the world, or all of the above. They are leading the world towards utter destruction all for their own aggrandizement. They have mobilized much of the American public behind them through a combination of fear and national pride.

Thousands of years have passed since man first populated the earth, and all the progress we have made is to come up with the means to annihilate the planet. When did progress become synonymous with destruction? Shouldn't we have by now become a totally humanistic society? No, war and oppression is all that's offered on the menu here at the Pax Americana Dinner. The first and only thing we should rise up against is the MIC, and begin legal actions for treason against all in our government who open doors wide for this scourge of our world, The Military Industrial Complex!

Sincerely,
Michelle
[Letter above is from an April, 2005 editorial I wrote to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette]


SNIP from:
The Anti-Empire Report
My Warhol Moment
by William Blum
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 16, 2006

The new documentary film by Eugene Jarecki, Why We Fight, which won the Sundance Festival's Grand Jury prize, relates how the pursuit of profit by arms merchants and other US corporations has fueled America's post-World War II wars a lot more than any love of freedom and democracy. The unlikely hero of the film is Dwight Eisenhower, whose famous warning about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex" is the film's principal motif.

Here is Jarecki being interviewed by the Washington
Post:

Post: Why did you make "Why We Fight?"

Jarecki: The simple answer: Eisenhower. He caught me off-guard. He seemed to have so much to say about our contemporary society and our general tilt towards militarism. ... The voices in Washington and the media have become so shrill. ... It seemed important to bring a little gray hair into the mix.

Post: How would you classify your politics? You've been accused of being a lefty.

Jarecki: I'm a radical centrist. ... If Dwight Eisenhower is a lefty, I am too. Then I'll walk with Ike. [6] [ellipses in original]

Isn't it nice that a film portraying the seamier side of the military-industrial complex is receiving such popular attention? And that we are able to look fondly upon an American president? How long has that been? Well, here I go again.

Eisenhower, regardless of what he said as he was leaving the presidency, was hardly an obstacle to American militarism or corporate imperialism. During his eight years in office, the United States intervened in every corner of the world, overthrowing the governments of Iran, Guatemala, Laos, the Congo, and British Guiana, and attempting to do the same in Costa Rica, Syria, Egypt, and Indonesia, as well as laying the military and political groundwork for the coming Indochinese holocaust.

Eisenhower's moralistically overbearing Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, summed up the administration's world outlook thusly: "For us there are two sorts of people in the world: there are those who are Christians and support free enterprise and there are the others."
www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Blum16.htm

Why We Fight

What are the forces that shape and propel American militarism? This award-winning film provides an inside look at the anatomy of the American war machine.

Is American foreign policy dominated by the idea of military supremacy? Has the military become too important in American life?
Click here for film:
informationclearinghouse.info/article8494.htm

[michelle]

Government officials are quite willing to wage permanent war in pursuit of capital gains.

When we consider the American military, we don't think about contracts or contractors, and we don't worry about the parasitical military industrial
complex. Dwight D. Eisenhower thought we should.

Ike was concerned that the average American did not really understand the sycophantic and codependent relationship between the defense industries, the military leadership, and the Congress. He noted "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. …We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications."

Defense industries carefully nurture politicians for war. They emphasized the job creation benefits and their own outstanding ability to produce needed armaments and supplies. Defense industries further worry politicians that without war, vast debts owed them by allies or opponents might never be collected, and domestic economic collapse will follow.

The military industrial complex lobbies Congress on a daily basis, costs the taxpayer billions each year, chips away at the credibility of the United States
as a force for justice and good will, exists in a hazy legal wasteland unaccountable to domestic or international law, and serves to embarrass the country with human rights abuses.

I've many times wondered why we continue to stay in Iraq when the general consensus is that we should leave immediately, and why Congress, particularly the Democratic party, drags it's feet on action against aggressive global expansion and endless war.

I've also asked how many members of Congress directly benefit from defense industries through contributions, ownership of defense industry stock, and other motivation such as constituent interests [jobs].

Here I've put together recent articles and reports which highlight the marriage between the United States government and the military-industrial complex. Bear in mind that I am not a professional researcher or a writer; I am merely a member of the human species and a mother whose concerns grow daily for the future of our children and the continuation of our planet.

Ike advised America to stay vigilant, observant, "alert and knowledgeable." I have taken Ike's advice to heart and offer the following for your information; I hope it helps. And please, share this information with others, join together and start putting intense pressure on your Congressional Representatives. Let them know you are aware of their games, and plundering of American citizens and that if they continue it will mean electoral death to them.

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Sincerely,
Michelle

Trust Busters
By Sheila Kaplan
Mother Jones
September/October 2005 Issue
SNIPS:
Both House and Senate ethics rules bar lawmakers from "improperly using their official positions for personal gain." The rules also require members to disclose their financial interests, and those of their spouses and dependent children. Some members, seeking to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest, avoid buying stock or stow their assets in blind trusts. Others invest only in index funds or in diversified mutual funds. But a substantial share of House members and senators trade enthusiastically -- or, like Biggert, permit their spouses and children to do so. An examination of the latest batch of financial disclosure reports, filed this summer for calendar year 2004, shows that dozens of lawmakers routinely buy and sell stock in industries they oversee, raising questions about whether they have an unfair advantage over the average investor.

In 2004, homeland-security and defense-related stocks were very popular with lawmakers. For example, Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who leads the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security and also serves on the panel that controls the Pentagon's budget, bought between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of stock in ManTech, a company that builds information systems for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Homeland Security. Gregg also sold between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of stock in IPIX, which provides battlefield imaging equipment to the Pentagon. Dozens of other lawmakers own stock in defense contractors, among them House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.), Deputy Whip Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.).
Read the entire. Other industry ownership quoted here also:
www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2005/09/trust_busters.html

When Lobbyists Say 'I Do,' Should They Add 'I Won't'?
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: February 19, 2006
SNIPS:
Marriages to lobbyists are increasingly common among Capitol staff members and even members of Congress — a situation that, even in Congress's current zeal for overhauling lobbying, almost no one seriously expects to be restricted any time soon.

Among the many members of Congress married to lobbyists are Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip; Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan; Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota; and Senator Elizabeth Dole, Republican of North Carolina.

Among Congressional staff, marriages to lobbyists are even more prevalent. This week, Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, defended the work of Vicki Siegel Herson, an aide who until recently handled military appropriations. She is married to Michael Herson, a top executive of the lobbying firm American Defense International; six clients of Mr. Herson's firm benefited from provisions Mr. Specter added to spending legislation. Mr. Specter said Mr. Herson's firm did not lobby his office on the clients' behalf, but the senator referred the matter to the ethics committee nonetheless.

Marriages joining lobbyists with lawmakers or their staff members were unheard of a few decades ago, said Donald A. Ritchie, a Senate historian. But since the 1960's, he said, such unions have become more common as the numbers of staff members and lobbyists have exploded.
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE:
www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/politics/19spouse.html

The Great Divide
Your War Profiteers at Work
Claudia Long
November 23, 2005
SNIP:
If you really want to get a sense of what the Iraq ?war? is all about, you need only look at who in our government is a supporter of it ? and what?s in their stock portfolios and campaign chests.
claudialong.com/blog/2005/11/22/your_war_profiteers_at_work.html

Defense Contractors Haven’t Just Doled to ‘Duke’[]
Disgraced congressman is far from the only politician to receive money from defense contractors MZM and ADCS
By Center for Responsive Politics
November 30, 2005
A number of federal officeholders have received political contributions from the same defense contractors from whom Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) has admitted accepting illegal bribes, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. Bribes, unlike lawful contributions, involve an agreement to take action in return for the money.

Political action committees controlled by MZM, Inc., which was founded by alleged Cunningham co-conspirator Mitchell Wade, and ADCS, Inc., which was founded by alleged co-conspirator Brent Wilkes, have contributed more than $1 million in the last 10 years to a roster of politicians, leadership PACs and party committees. (From 1995 to 2005, MZM, Inc. gave $304,676 and Wilkes/ADCS Inc. gave $732,646.) Top recipients include Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-Va.), Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.), Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Tom DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority PAC and President Bush. Republicans have been the recipients of 95% of the two defense contractors' giving, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' analysis.
For Cunningham’s part, he and his political action committee received at least $115,000 since 1995 in political contributions from the two defense contractors and their employees. Through its PAC and employees, MZM gave Cunningham and his "American Prosperity PAC" $30,000 over the last decade, while ADCS and its affiliates contributed $85,500 during that period.

Former MZM CEO Wade and ADCS President Wilkes have been named as co-conspirators in the Cunningham case. News reports cite two additional co-conspirators, alleged to be Thomas T. Kontogiannis and John T. Michael. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Kontogiannis and his spouse have given $33,650 at the federal level since 1995, all to Republican candidates and party committees. Michael gave $1,100 to the National Republican Congressional Committee during the same period.
www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=193#Links

Recipients of “MZM Inc” PAC and Individual Donations, 1995-2005*
www.capitaleye.org/mzm_recips.asp

Recipients of “Wilkes Corp/ADCS Inc” PAC and Individual Donations, 1995-2005*
www.capitaleye.org/wilkes_recips.asp

Defense Misc.

Background While this sector often provides far less campaign money than any of the others, it remains one of the most powerful on Capitol Hill, especially now during the fighting in Iraq. Since President Bush took office, the Defense sector’s contributions have increased dramatically, and they continue to rise. Defense contractors increase the impact of their giving by targeting their contributions toward members of key congressional committees.

Most defense sector contributions are concentrated on members of the House and Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittees, which allocate federal defense money, and the Armed Service committees, which influence military policy. Contributions as a whole favor Republicans, but many of the top contributors within the sector give to both parties fairly evenly, a reflection of the fact that it is important to have friends in high places in both parties when competing for federal contracts.

Although the companies in this industry spend millions competing for lucrative government contracts, they also manage to pool their political resources when pushing for programs that are jointly developed. Feel free to distribute
www.opensecrets.org/industries/background.asp?Ind=D&cycle=2006

Defense Electronics:
Background

The hundreds of billions of dollars the federal government spends each year on defense are the reason defense electronics firms make millions of dollars in campaign contributions, a majority of which has gone to Republicans since 1989. Defense electonics contractors concentrate their political donations on members of the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that allocate federal defense money. Prime targets of defense electronics money also include members of the Armed Services committees, who influence military policy and have the power to create demand for this industry's commodities.

With the exception of No. 1 contributor Raytheon, defense electronics contractors typically do not give as much as other defense companies. This may be a reflection of the industry’s relatively low profile; rarely listed as prime contractors on big-ticket budget items, defense electronics companies instead participate in a secondary role on many projects. Raytheon, for example, develops avionics for fighter jets and helicopters, infrared sensor technology for tanks and software for Navy ships.

These companies also get much of their work through subcontracts, meaning their income is often at the mercy of larger defense companies, rather than the government. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.
www.opensecrets.org/industries/background.asp?Ind=D02&cycle=2006


Defense Aerospace:
Background

The hundreds of billions of dollars the federal government spends each year on defense are the reason defense aerospace firms make millions of dollars in campaign contributions, a majority of which has gone to Republicans since 1989. Defense aerospace contractors concentrate their political donations on members of the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that allocate federal defense money. Prime targets of defense aerospace money also include members of the Armed Services committees, who influence military policy and have the power to create demand for this industry's commodities.

Lockheed Martin is the industry’s top campaign contributor. The company’s political investment paid off in 2001 when it secured a $220 billion deal to build the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter combat jets. The contract was the largest ever awarded by the Pentagon, and at $ 44.8 million for the basic version, the fighter costs 60 percent less than the F/A-22, Lockheed's most advanced jet.

Other top contributors in the industry include United Technologies, best known for its Sikorsky “Black Hawk” helicopters, and Boeing, the commercial airplane maker that has recently expanded its line of fighter jets, bombers and unmanned aerial vehicles. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.
www.opensecrets.org/industries/background.asp?Ind=D01&cycle=2006

Industry Total Dem Pct GOP Pct Top Recipient

Defense Electronics $1,728,695 43% 57% John P. Murtha (D-Pa)

Defense Aerospace $1,313,306 42% 58% Joe Lieberman (D-Conn)

Misc Defense $1,403,731 38% 62% Duncan Hunter (R-Calif)

www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.asp

Tangled Web 2005: A Profile of the Missile Defense and Space Weapons Lobbies
by William D. Hartung with Frida Berrigan, Michelle Ciarrocca, and Jonathan Wingo

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction: Missile Defense Technical and Cost IssuesShould Missile Defense be a Priority?
II. A Capsule History of the Missile Defense Lobby The Genesis of the Current Missile Defense Lobby The Battle in Congress
III. Enter George W. Bush
IV. Contractors Cash In Contracts Increase and the Rich Get Richer Missile Defense Contractors: Who Makes What?
V. Contractor Political Contributions:What are They Getting for Their Money? Alabama and Missile Defense Other Congress/Corporate Connections
VI. Seeds of a Space Weapons Lobby Examples of Space Weapons Programs Possible Pillars of a Space Weapons Lobby Impediments to Development of Space Weapons And a Space Weapons Lobby
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I: Missile Defense Spending, 2000- 2006
TABLE II: Top Ten Missile Defense Contractors, 2001-2004 8
TABLE III: Top 15 Recipients of Funding from Missile Defense Contractors, U.S. House of Representatives, 2001-2006
TABLE IV: Top 15 Recipients of Funding from 12 Missile Defense Contractors, U.S. Senate, 2001-2006
APPENDIX A: Top 15 House Recipients of Funding from Missile Defense Contractors, 2001-2006 With Details by Company
APPENDIX B: Top 15 Senate Recipients of Funding from Missile Defense Contractors, 2001-2006 With Details by Company
APPENDIX C: Additional Resources
NOTES TANGLED WEB II THE MISSILE DEFENSE AND SPACE WEAPONS LOBBIES 2005
www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/tangledweb.html

"When you hear our officials flogging enthusiasm for the war, pay close attention to the loudest supporters. You will generally find that their level of support is directly related to how much they, and their corporate bedfellows, are making on it."

"As long as the taxpayers meekly allowed themselves to be fleeced ? and the profits continue to pour in, our officials have no incentive to bring the troops home. Because these officials are men who are quite willing to wage permanent war in pursuit of capital gains."

From article above: The Great Divide
Your War Profiteers at Work