Category Archives: Empire

Bubble Kings have their own wealth abroad….

Posted on by

“Paulson has successfully orchestrated the rigging of the dollar in collaboration with crony banks like the BIS, ECB, BOJ and BOE (Barclays); and, surprisingly, for the moment, China. The “smart money” — no small part of which are the insiders, the henchmen providing logistical support to the Goldman empire (self-aggrandizing CEOs, etc.) — has long moved into gold (back when the Rothschilds abandoned the London gold fix), Euros and, increasingly, tangible properties lying outside of the sinking-ship America, into high growth regions like Asia and India — and now, increasingly, mineral rich Africa…….This explains the absence of the bond vigilantes. The wealthy have never held their money in the equity casino. Their lifestyles are framed in the triple-A credit markets, taking sustenance from the interest earned on the shoulders of the working man. With interest payments no longer covering the cost of inflation, the Goldman Sachs oligarchy has corralled the wealth and relocated it offshore.”
From Rick Ackerman at Goldseek.

Comment:
Anyone who thinks that the gold price has successfully broken free of manipulation this time round should watch it. When I wrote my investigative piece on Goldman Sachs last year, I too underestimated the grip they had on the system. I thought that the weakness of the subprime market and the problems with the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) – problems in which Goldman was involved – as well as their own corruption would eventually prove too much. Instead, GS managed to exploit and further extend its government ties. Its alumni are now in charge, not only of the Fed Reserve, US Treasury and other key government positions (including security), but also of 3 of the half dozen biggest banks. The result? GS not only managed to escape really being hit by the subprime mess but to fatten off of it. Not because of financial wizardry. But because of insider connections that get thicker and thicker with each tick of the clock.Moral of the story? Trade gold midterm (if you must) – don’t hold it and forget it (unless you bought it at historic lows). Better yet, forget about gold and try to buy real assets of good quality that generate cash flow.

And help break through the PC fog. It’s not about whether there’s a woman or an African American in the White House. It’s not about gay marriage or gun control. All those are important issues, but right now, quite secondary.

 

I’m not against being courteous and calling anyone what they want to be called, but the result of falling in line with every part of PC is to keep you thinking that secondary issues are more important than they are. Whether they are for or against guns or gays or babies or birthpills, ALL the major candidates are FOR the present system. Whether it’s Barack or Hillary or Rudy or Fred, there’s still going to be bigger government, more wars, more manipulation of finance.

But don’t give up on the USA just yet. Not while there’s a bloke called Ron Paul around.

Global games: scenarios for future shocks

Posted on by

“1) Supply Availability: Fossil fuel is not permanent panacea for our energy needs and it cannot be replenished. Various experts claim oil had “peaked” after the year 2000, and this contention is consistent with the current trajectory of oil prices. Royal Dutch Shell alone was forced to cut its reserve estimates five times in 2004 [1]. Major oil firms are desperately trying to boost flagging oil and gas production capacities and their quandary is exemplified by an over-reliance on moribund fields worldwide, a prominent one being the Ghawar wells in Saudi Arabia.

Oil is now being extracted from deeper sources through more expensive processes i.e. water injection. The price of oil will remain high.

Peak Oil is also called “Hubbert’s Peak,” named after Shell geologist Dr Marion King Hubbert. In 1956, Hubbert accurately predicted that US domestic oil production would peak in 1970 and that global production would peak in 1995. This would have transpired had the oil shocks of the 70s not delayed the peak for about 10-15 years.

2) Supply Stretch: Oil supply is so stretched that a concerted sabotage of two major pipelines in Russia or Saudi Arabia can precipitate pandemonium in the global economy. Hurricane Katrina, which, recently struck the oil producing Gulf Coast off the United States ratcheted oil to a record $70 per barrel. Major oil producing regions – Middle East, Central Asia, Russia and Venezuela – are bedeviled by terrorism and political volatility. Where stability exists, oil reserves are on a steep decline i.e. North America and the North Sea.

3) Environmental Factor: More hurricanes will ensue over the next few years in the Gulf Coast where most of the United States’ oil rigs and refineries are located. The “Atlantic multi-decadal mode” – where the “Atlantic Ocean and atmospheric conditions conspire” every “20 to 40 years” to “produce just the right conditions to cause increased storm and hurricane activity”[2]- all point to a fragile energy climate ahead. This is a factor omitted by popular literature on the looming energy crisis.

4) Global Financial Crisis: The euro-zone countries hold over $200 billion in US securities while Asia holds $1 trillion or more. This is enough to sink the US economy, though foreign parties are well aware of the dangers of redeeming these securities too soon. US domestic and foreign deficits have reached historic proportions[3]. In a classic Catch-22 situation, US monopoly on oil is being countered by a foreign hoard of US securities. A global hedge fund and banking crisis is looming as well. Banks had “created capital during the cheap oil period by lending more than they had on deposit, being confident that Tomorrow’s Expansion, fueled by cheap oil-based energy, was adequate collateral for Today’s Debt. The decline of oil, the principal driver of economic growth, undermines the validity of that collateral which in turn erodes the valuation of most entities quoted on Stock Exchanges.” (Campbell)

5) Soaring Prices: Goldman Sachs, among other reputed financial establishments, have already alerted markets of a possible “superspike” of US$105 per barrel. More recent projections place it even higher. In June 2005, despite repeated market assurances, OPEC raised its band system to US$40-US$50 (Reuters, June 24 2005). This band system may be revised further in lieu of a smooth global supply, which are not on the horizon.

THEORY:

The research is informed by the following theoretical assumptions:

The high price of oil is battering national economies, though the full extent of this will be actualized in the coming months or years. Current oil supplies have been inked and hedged in advance, at lower costs, though the rising band systems (or baskets) are placing a strain on any negotiated deals. To avoid a global industrial meltdown, or an outright collapse, oil supplies may have to be renegotiated in favor of major industrial powers like India and China to keep a crucial part of the global commerce running. There might be a further shift of basic, crucial manufacturing to these countries.

Here is a regional breakdown of scenarios underpinned by this research’s theoretical assumptions:

China: If its vast industrial expanse is threatened by an acute energy shortage, it might seize the purportedly oil-rich Spratly Islands, a chain of reefs also claimed by Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan and the Philippines – all of whom are vested with greater legitimacy under the UN’s Law of Seas Convention. China’s recent moves to acquire Unocal, and even Exxon, hints at its desperation for oil. Further military escalations in the South China Sea are a distinct possibility to avert internal chaos. Taiwan may reunite with the mainland for economic reasons.

India: Now in a uniquely historical role to dictate terms to the West. Not only does it handle vital software infrastructure for MNCs, its call centers are crucial to international commerce. No other nation can produce call centers in such colossal numbers within a very short time. A shutdown of both – even for a day – will lead to financial mayhem. The linguistic edge India enjoys in terms of geopolitical power is largely ignored in international relations texts. Its industry is more service-oriented vis a vis China, and therefore less vulnerable to oil shocks.

Japan: Has been experimenting with alternative power sources for decades, some of which are already operational. Its military capabilities are limited.

Europe: Another region with a long tradition of experimentation with alternative energy. In a better position than most to weather an oil crisis.

South Korea: In a similar situation to Japan, but without a long track record of developing alternative power sources. Historically, it has resisted Chinese hegemony and might align itself to the US, even with a belligerent North Korea factored out.

Russia: Through its enormous reserves of oil and gas, Russia may aggrandize its geopolitical leverage in Europe. In the short-term, before a multifarious energy infrastructure is in place, the EU may have to make concessions to Russia.

Venezuela, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, North Africa and the Middle East: Has oil but no military capability to counter external threats.

Africa and South America: International Realism will leave little breathing space for these regions by virtue of their internal weaknesses.”

More by activist and researcher, Matthew Maawak.

Citizens of empire: time to take off the masks

Posted on by

Referencing a piece by John Pilger on Burma, Jason Goroncy writes:

“Scandalised by my own hypocrisy (which is no excuse for Rice’s, Brown’s or Howard’s), I am regularly reminded of Kierkegaard’s words from his Either/Or:

Do you not know that there comes a midnight hour when every one has to throw off his mask? Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked? Do you think you can slip away a little before midnight in order to avoid this? Or are you not terrified by it? I have seen men in real life who so long deceived others that at last their true nature could not reveal itself; … In every man there is something which to a certain degree prevents him from becoming perfectly transparent to himself; and this may be the case in so high a degree, he may be so inexplicably woven into relationships of life which extend far beyond himself that he almost cannot reveal himself. But he who cannot reveal himself cannot love, and he who cannot love is the most unhappy man of all.

From Per Crucem Ad Lucem.

Speak Up, Speak Up….for peace

Posted on by

“Bush and Cheney are steering the U.S. into a collapse. Only strong public voices by influential people can prevent the coming disaster. We desperately need for men and women who are known to the public and have credibility to speak up in the critical period ahead to avoid catastrophe,”

says Michael Rozoff, former professor of finance at Amherst.

“Why may an unprovoked attack on Iran lead to WWIII and why may it lead to the collapse of the U.S.?

Imagine this scenario. The U.S. encourages Israel to bomb the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran. Russia attempts to restrain an Iranian response but fails. Iran responds in any of many ways, such as launching missiles on Israel, firing on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, mining the Straits of Hormuz, sending troops into Iraq, or allying its military with Hezbollah and attacking Israel from Lebanon.

The U.S., citing Iran’s aggressions (that will be the story), launches a full-scale attack on Iran designed to devastate the country. This attack has actually been planned by the U.S. for years. Syria is unable to maintain neutrality and quickly becomes a battleground between Iran and Israel.

The price of oil by this point has already soared to $200 a barrel. The U.S. begins to use its strategic reserve and to divert Iraqi production. Russia responds by taking steps to prevent its oil production from reaching the U.S. China responds by cutting off its support of the U.S. Treasury market. Venezuela halts oil shipments to the U.S. The first stages of WWIII are economic warfare designed to cripple the U.S. and halt its war-making capacity.

The U.S., unable to finance its deficits and fund its sovereign debt, is forced into raising interest rates drastically in order to borrow. The Fed is forced to print money. An inflationary spiral occurs. Meanwhile the high interest rates and high oil prices, not to mention the shock of a spreading conflict, drive the U.S. economy into severe decline. The U.S. attempts to raise taxes in order to fund itself, further crippling the economy. Gold soars to $1,500–$2,000 an ounce….”

Alexander Cockburn on Naomi Klein’s literary shock and tell…

Posted on by

“Leftists used to think that at least as a general axiom, if not by a precise deadline, capitalism was doomed. When I first arrived in the United States in the early 1970s, there was enough exuberance in the air even for mild-mannered reformers to be pushing plans for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, World Bank and kindred institutions.But today most of these same leftists deem capitalism invincible and fearfully lob copious documentation at each other detailing the efficient devilry of the executives of the system. The internet serves to amplify this pervasive funk into a catastrophist mindset. It imbues most of the English-speaking left west of the Atlantic after seven years of Bush and Cheney, and frames Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.“

At the outset Klein permits herself a robust trumpet blast as intrepid pioneer:

“This book is a challenge to the central and most cherished claim in the official story — that the triumph of deregulated capitalism has been born of freedom, that unfettered free markets go hand in hand with democracy. Instead, I will show that this fundamentalist form of capitalism has consistently been midwifed by the most brutal forms of coercion, inflicted on the collective body politic as well as on countless individual bodies.”

The arc of triumph she is alluding to spans the half century from the Eisenhower administration’s onslaughts on political and economic nationalism in Iran and Guatemala in the early 1950s, to the US attack on Iraq in 2003 and its subsequent occupation. These are not decades where official apologetics have been entirely without challenge until Ms. Klein embarked on her researches. There are shelves worth of books on the ghastly consequences of the covert interventions and massacres organized or connived at by the United States in the name of freedom and the capitalist way. Klein’s own bibliography attests that there has plenty of detailed work on the neoliberal onslaught that gathered strength from the mid-70s on, marching under the intellectual colors of one of her arch villains, the late Milton Friedman, the Chicago School economist….”

More here at Counterpunch.

Arthur Conan Doyle on wartime atrocities

Posted on by

In a best-seller he wrote about the British war on the Boer settlers in South Africa at the end of the nineteenth century, Conan Doyle excoriates Breaker Morant, the renegade Englishman who made a name breaking in horses in Australia, before volunteering to fight for the imperial army, and then becoming implicated in 20 murders of Afrikaner and Africans in the Northern Transvaal, one of a missionary. He was court-martialed and executed.
Incidentally, at the time of the atrocities, 1901, the war had entered the guerrilla stage and Lord Kitchener had formed a special fighting unit, the Bushveldt Carbineers. Plus ca change etc…

“There is one incident, however, in connection with the war in this region which one would wish to pass over in silence if such a course were permissible… (A)n irregular corps… (with its) wild duties, its mixed composition, and its isolated situation must have all militated against discipline and restraint, and it appears to have degenerated into a band not unlike those Southern “bush-whackers” in the American (civil) war to whom the Federals showed little mercy. They had given short shrift to the Boer prisoners who had fallen into their hands, the excuse offered for their barbarous conduct being that an officer who had served in the corps had himself been murdered by the Boers. Such a reason, even if it were true, could of course offer no justification for indiscriminate revenge… This stern measure (the execution of Handcock and Morant) shows more clearly than volumes of argument could do how high was the standard of discipline of the British army, and how heavy was the punishment, and how vain all excuses, where it had been infringed. In the face of this actual outrage and its prompt punishment how absurd becomes that crusade against imaginary outrages preached by an ignorant press abroad, and by renegade Englishmen at home. ” (p. 521).

In Australia, many see Morant as a folk hero and as a scape-goat for Kitchener:

“there is now persuasive evidence from several sources to show that the Kitchener ‘no prisoners’ order did indeed exist, that it was widely known among both the British and Australian troops and carried out by many disparate units…….Bleszynski, like Witton, Denton and Beresford, believes that Morant and Handcock were given a show trial, branded as murderous renegades and then executed as a matter of political expediency. He argues that this was done mainly to appease the Boer government and help secure a peace treaty, but also to prevent the British public from learning that, however unpalatable their actions, Morant and his men had in fact been carrying out a standing ‘no prisoners’ order that had been issued by the British commander-in-chief himself.”

More here. 

A ratio of 2,801:1+ million

Posted on by

Anyone who says that 9-11 justified the war in Iraq is saying, in effect, that the deaths of 2,801 people (let’s round it up to 3000) justifies the killing of over a million (and here we are ignoring the deaths of US and Iraqi military and Afghan civilians and military). Let’s round that down to 1 million. That’s 3000 to 1 million or 3 to 1000 or 1 to about 333.

What that means is that for each American life, we think killing 333 foreign lives is justified.

Try to translate that into private life. Imagine that you come home and find that someone has killed your son or wife. Imagine that you then feel justified in going into a neighborhood (sort of) close to where your suspected murderer lives and blowing up all the homes there and killing several hundred people.

What do you think the reaction of other people, let alone the government, would be? Wouldn’t you be considered insane? Wouldn’t you quickly be arrested, hauled off to a maximum security jail (with bail set as high as possible) and put on a 24-hour watch?

By contrast, in the world of states, the avenger is allowed to justify himself in public places, create alliances with other neighborhood thugs, threaten new neighborhoods, arm himself to the teeth, threaten even his own family members and feel highly virtuous — even pious — while doing so.
Is there anything more telling about the fundamental immorality, and even lunacy, of the state system? No use just blaming the US government. You can be pretty sure that there are dozens of other governments all over this planet, which in the same place, would do the same…. or worse.

Which leads us to the inescapable conclusion – the state system is a grossly immoral conspiracy against all decency and humanity.

The Cojones Crowd….or the reasons why reasons are useless sometimes

Posted on by

My co-author Bill Bonner on mail from his dear readers at the Daily Reckoning, taking him to task for wondering at the War on Terror:

“I value your insights into the markets, the economy and investments tremendously. Since becoming a reader of The Daily Reckoning, my portfolio is way up. However, I have just a few points to add to your liberal slant on all things non-financial. You say that the radical Islamists are impotent because they don’t have governments and standing armies? Did a government or standing army kill 3,000 plus people at the World Trade Center? Did a government or a standing army give the strategy, training, explosives and determination to kill 300 people in the Madrid train bombings? And don’t forget the Indonesian nightclub bombing. And by the way, if the 9/11 attacks were a criminal matter, could your ‘cops’ have gone after the Islamic brass in Afghanistan? And, sir, if you haven’t learned it yet, the threat of retaliation is not a reason not to attack your enemies. Particularly when they have already stated that their goal is your death, and that they are working on the means to accomplish their goals. So send your brandy-swilling friends out for a walk and grow some cojones!”

We never thought of our point of view as ‘liberal.’ But the liberals attack us as a ‘conservative,’ so we’re happy to annoy them both – liberals and ‘conservatives’…republicans and democrats. We are truly impartial; we love them all.

If you tried to apply a kind of ‘pure logic’ – admittedly impossible – to the matter, where would it take you? Our critics maintain that some criminals are special. They are so dangerous, so potent, such a threat to life and limb, that the cops can’t deal with them. They must be pursued by the army. (And any man who says otherwise isn’t a real man!)

Of course, to the average American, the current threat posed by the ‘Islamic terrorists’ is vanishingly small. Every day, more or less, someone is murdered in Baltimore. As far as we know, no one has ever been killed by ‘Islamic terrorists.’ Not a single one in the last 350 years. Logically, murder by a homeland Christian (just guessing) is a much larger threat. But there is no great demand for intervention by the troops from nearby Fort Meade.

“This threat is different,” say the cojones crowd. True, it is. But in order to justify a ‘war’ – such as the war in Iraq – they must also believe in a series of abstractions, theories, metaphors and guesswork:

– That there really is an organized group of ‘Islamic terrorists’
– That the group is growing, becoming more effective
– That it will continue to grow
– That it will pose a real danger sometime in the future
– That these terrorists really have it in for Americans
– That they will get powerful weapons and learn to use them
– That international police organizations cannot stop them
– That military intervention can stop them
– That we (or someone) knows what kind of intervention will be effective
– That the effect of military intervention will not be negative
– That collateral damage and unanticipated consequences will not outweigh the benefits
– That there will not be a backlash, actually aiding the terrorists
– That we can afford the intervention; that it’s worth it
– That we Americans are behind intervention (a consideration for true democrats)
– That God himself is on our side (a consideration for religious people)

And so on…and so on…

The odds that any of these things are correct are unknowable. Some are probably more or less true…some are probably more or less untrue. Logic requires that the individual odds be toted up…some added…some multiplied…in order to yield the likelihood that the whole list is correct. We don’t know, but our guess is that an unemotional logician – with cojones or not – would come to the same conclusion as Maggie Thatcher. War always has consequences you can’t foresee. In this one, there were too many “uncertainties,” she said.

No one ever accused Ms. Thatcher of lacking cojones.

“Cojones has nothing to do with it,” says the logical mind. But cojones has everything to do with it, is our guess. The actual odds that military intervention will make the world a better place are probably very small. In any case, they are certainly unknowable. So, the rational person would probably not want to use military force – killing thousands of innocent people…putting millions in danger…spending billions of dollars – except when he had to…

…or when he wanted to.

Critics of the war in Iraq don’t give cojones their due. Critics imagine that the war crowd has made a mistake. They try to argue with them…to meet their foes with reason…and with reasons. What a waste of time. They need to step back and look at the people they’re arguing with; look at all of us.

We have brains. But we have cojones too. Occasionally, we use our brains…and occasionally we howl at the moon…”

Bill Bonner

Comment: 

Is howling at the moon all this is about?

I beg to differ. I think a large component of the pro-war crowd has allowed themselves to be worked upon by propaganda, yes. But I don’t think the people who move policy are lacking in logic — though in my opinion the logic is faulty and is showing it at every step of the way.

So what is the logic?

The logic is to control the domestic population more fully so that its work product (savings) is available for financial elites to use as they please, its consumption is manipulated toward products that are most highly profitable to those elites (high priced drugs, weapons, for example) and its leisure is saturated with mind-numbing entertainment or political spectacles that are essentially distractions and lead no where. These days, politics is the opium of the people…..

Whatever will change people’s minds won’t be simply political. It will have to be something more…

Ron Paul, General Petraeus, and shock doctrine sloganeering…

Posted on by

My new piece on Ron Paul and David Petraeus (at Lew Rockwell):

“This past week the buzz has all been about the House testimony of General David Petraeus on the “surge” in Iraq and an inflammatory ad in response that dubbed him General “Betray Us.”

The ad, the brainchild of an antiwar group, ripped the general’s assessment that the increase in manpower in Iraq in 2007 (the “surge”) has been effective. It pointed out that the Petraeus report is in stark contrast to independent evaluations of the situation by the GAO as well as evaluations by the Republican party itself.

At issue is the timing of troop withdrawal.

The antiwar movement (with a large part of the population) wants the troops out immediately and insists that the US presence in Iraq is itself inciting violence and terrorism. Bush supporters, many Republicans, some Democrats, and the rest of the population support staying on. They say that immediate withdrawal could create a strategic and humanitarian disaster.

Whatever we think of the administration, we can safely assume that most war supporters really do believe that the occupation of Iraq is central to US national security and the war on terrorism. Questioning their good faith isn’t necessary. Asking why they think this way is.

Take the language war-supporters use. It suggests that people like Ron Paul who want immediate withdrawal are dangerously unrealistic, not merely unpatriotic.

These critics should take another look and see if it isn’t their ideas that run counter to reality. They give us “withdrawal” and “staying on” as mutually exclusive opposites. But any kind of withdrawal can’t possibly happen without some staying on. The troops can’t simply come home tomorrow, presto, because we want them out. So, the issue really is not withdrawal but different lengths of staying on. A few months or many years? At this point you’ll notice that the troops have already stayed on for four years.

Is all this hairsplitting?

No.

By constantly talking in binary terms (withdrawal/no withdrawal), we play into our brain’s hard-wired tendency to think along the lines of group rivalry. We play into the “mob mind” that loves nothing more than slogans.

Obviously if there is a yes/no, either/or divide, we can safely perch on one side and shove our rivals (and the divide immediately creates rivals) to the other side. Then we can devote all our energies to reinforcing this fictitious model with every shred of evidence and lung power at our disposal. Anyone with a passing interest in psychology will tell you what the result will be. We will get more and more of what we focus on – an impasse. And our model of the world will increasingly diverge from the reality underneath.

Take away the “withdraw/no withdrawal” slogan and something happens.

What you get turns out to be not one question but at least two, both of which require us to look at history, not just ideology.

The prescriptive question is –

How long should we stay?

(The post-mortem version is more accurate, how long should we have stayed?)

And the descriptive question is –

How long have we already stayed?

The second question is more interesting….and quite clear.

We’ve been in Iraq not for 4 years, but for 16. (If we count all the meddling with different groups, we’ve been there even longer – for decades). A baby born when George père halted at the gates of Baghdad would be taking her SAT’s by the time George fils first started showing withdrawal symptoms.

To people who think that getting out now will create a national security and humanitarian disaster, the question we really should be posing is this one:

What sort of national security and humanitarian contingency ever needed a 16-year troop presence half way across the globe that took, all told, around 1.5 million civilian and military lives and around 1.5 trillion dollars?

Seen this way, the issue is no longer the timing of the withdrawal. That’s simply the logistical seal on a 16-year bipartisan strategy that’s already about as big a disaster in humanitarian, economic, and national security terms as you could possibly have without entirely wiping out a country.

The real question is the point of such a disastrous strategy in the first place.

Focusing on the past 16 years (rather than the past 4) tells us where we should be looking for explanations: To the end of the Cold War.

The Cold War, of course, was a boon to the mob mentality. There were all those stark slogans of bi-polarity – us/them, good guys/evil empire, capitalist/communist.

At one level there was good sense in them. Nobody can read Solzhenitsyn or Robert Conquest without being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the horrors in Soviet Russia. Or in Mao’s China. Or under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

It would be easy to conclude from that that what the US did from fear that such communist regimes would expand was always and everywhere justified.

But it wasn’t – because the slogans swept a great deal under the carpet. Some of which was more precious than the painted furniture on top. The label of communism, for instance, failed to tell apart communists and nationalists, communists and anti-imperialists, communists and anarchists, communists and socialists. The real facts of history and politics got washed out in the ideological spin-cycle.

Worse yet, instead of standing firmly on its own individualist, libertarian, and rational principles to counter the evils of utopianism, America – or rather the US government – began to adopt the collectivist methods of its enemies. From a modest republic content with commercial pursuits it transformed itself into a grasping empire of ideologues. Some would say that this has always been the case and that the roots of empire reach much deeper into American history. They could be right.

However, it was really during the Cold War that the non-interventionist principles of the old republic were most thoroughly dismantled. And the sloganeers trying to rally the masses were the primary victims of the sloganeering:

Conservatives started discarding rather than conserving traditional principles of state-craft to pursue a world order made in their own image.

Free marketers began to believe that the state ought to subsidize their risk-taking.

Capitalists started adopting socialist language and policies.

Liberal democracy – of the particular kind enjoyed by western states in the twentieth century – was now said to be an unconditional good for all states, at all times.

But, as a mad, wise man said, “everything unconditional belongs in pathology.”

So, at the end of several decades wrestling with the unconditional theories of world communism, the US too began to display its own pathology.

This was enough the case that in 1989 when the sloganeers said that the capitalists had defeated the communists, some observers feared that both had lost. They were right. The rivalry between capitalism and communism turned out to have been a race to the bottom. The price of winning the fight against communism was the loss of the principle at stake in the fight.

Liberty holding up the torch of reason to guide the state became liberty torching reason in abject service to the state.

This new liberty was not liberty at all but license. The regulations it effectively dismantled were mainly those that applied to businesses feeding off government contracts that were large enough to rule out the rule-makers. The rest of America was hog-tied with rules. Here, too, employing the slogans of the mob misleads: It turns out you can have too much regulation and too little – simultaneously.

So, while ordinary individuals and businesses are persecuted at every turn by ham-handed bureaucrats, a handful of corporations, especially those connected to the military, banking, finance, and energy, have become a rentier class, deriving their profits not from genuine free enterprise, from value added, innovation, foresight, and risk-taking, but from their special relationship to the government. Entrepreneurs have been displaced by over-paid technocrats, experts, and managers every bit as bureaucratic and wasteful as the state enterprises they claim to be stream-lining.

Even the most sensitive government functions, like intelligence, are handed over to private contractors working hand-in-hand with the state in mercantilist ventures that rely increasingly on war and disaster to achieve their goals. Simultaneously, the life-blood of the economy, its paper money, is subject to continuous manipulation. As more and more of middle-class savings in the bank, in pension funds, and in home equity, are sucked into the financial markets, financiers siphon off the profits for themselves, while government bailouts socialize the costs of their risk-taking.

It is this corrupt “corporatism” that has claimed the mantle of liberty and free enterprise and swindled millions all over the world into believing it is the true face of free enterprise.

Thus, in her new book, “Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” Naomi Klein, author of the anti-globalization manifesto, “No Logo,” draws a connection between government shock therapy and human rights violations (echoing a fine essay by Peter Linebaugh in Counterpunch in 2004).

For her, as for many on the left, mercantilism and financialization are capitalism.

But why should we argue the point with socialists when so-called capitalists themselves agree? When the right claims that opposition to torture and war are opposition to the American way of life – isn’t it conceding just this? That capitalism and individualism require endless war and torture?

But suppose, just suppose, the case is precisely the opposite. Suppose it is our slogans that are at fault, not capitalism. Suppose – as it really is – that capitalism and free enterprise best go hand in hand with peace and that the welfare-warfare state we’re so comfortable with is properly called collectivist, not capitalist.

Suppose that the war on Iraq is not a defense of the individualist way of life but the final assault on it – then what?

Then we might notice that the sense of duty that General Petraeus shows – the unquestioning loyalty to the organization he works for, the competitive desire to get the job done, is quite a different thing from that displayed, for instance, by the plain-speaking General George C. Marshall, whose name happens to be on an award given to Petraeus.

Today, plain-speaking is out. Part of the duty the military is to undertake public diplomacy so extensive that it is no more than disinformation.

It is disinformation, for instance, to say that a reduction in troop size of around 30,000 by next year (that is, after the elections) is a withdrawal of troops, when all it would do is return troop strength to what it was before the surge in 2007.

That is not a reduction, it is actually an extension of a surge originally expected to produce a result in 6 months – or be declared a failure.

But should we blame this on Petraeus, who, with a PhD from Princeton in Public Administration, is after all as much a technocrat as he is a general? A technocrat who is intimately part of the financialization and mercantilism of US Govt. Inc. In Bosnia, for example, he was Deputy Commander of the U.S. Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force (JITF-CT), specially created after September 11 to add a counter-terrorism capability to the U.S. forces under NATO in Bosnia.

That was at the time when Dyncorp, one of the largest private military contractors in the world, was providing police officers as part of a $15 million annual contract for logistical support.

Two of its employees alleged that several colleagues had colluded in the black-market sex trade of women and children – allegations supported by a court finding that the firing of one whistle-blower was retaliatory and by an out-of-court settlement with another.

Nonetheless, Dyncorp was active again in Iraq, sending out ex-cops and security guards to Iraq to help train a new police force. And again, it was none other than Petraeus who was in charge of that training as well as in setting up Shiite militias (death squads) to go after Sunnis.

Recall, too, that conditions for interrogations involving torture were often set by private contractors unaccountable to government through traditional channels.

And that it was General Petraeus who set up the Shia militias in July 2004 as part of a “surge” that immediately followed the exposure of torture at Abu Ghraib but was immediately displaced by it in the media sensation.

Now, with this new surge in Iraq, three years later, what Petraeus is doing is simply switching his enemies. He is now arming and training Sunni militias to fight Shia.

But he’s not switching contractors. In June 2007 Dyncorp was again chosen by the US army to provide logistical support, this time to the tune of $5 billion a year.

This is the backdrop to Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki’s falling out with Petraeus this past summer. Al-Maliki, a Shia, demanded that Petraeus stop creating Sunni militia. He wanted an end to the surge and the US out of Iraq immediately.

But why would the administration want to get out when arming Sunni militias provokes Iranian support of the Shia? And when that, in turn, provides a convenient justification for more sabre-rattling against Iran? It perfectly fits a decades old neo-conservative plan to destabilize the Middle East.

Obviously, Petraeus, who did his doctoral dissertation on the impact of Vietnam on the conduct of war, has learned the lesson from it that public perception of a war must be thoroughly managed. Too bad that’s not quite the same lesson learned by one of his best advisors, Col. H. R. McMaster, a soldier celebrated in Tom Clancy’s novels.

McMaster’s book on Vietnam, “Dereliction of Duty,” blames not just the arrogance of Johnson and McNamara for the failure in Vietnam but their calculated deception of the American people. The book is now required reading in the army. Yet, oddly, its author was passed over twice for promotion, while Petraeus shot to the top. That should tell us exactly which lesson from Vietnam is in favor with this government. And what sort of patriotism is popular these days.

Just there lies the difference between the Patriot Acts of this administration and the acts of patriots like Ron Paul, who owes nothing to any organization for his views. Who stands entirely apart from the two-faced one-party system currently in power.

Paul’s patriotism comes from an older time, when someone like “George Marshall could tell the truth and be praised for it, not slandered.

“When General Marshall takes the witness stand to testify,” it was said, “we forget whether we are Republicans or Democrats. We know we are in the presence of a man who is telling the truth about the problem he is discussing.”

The truth-telling of General Marshall and Dr. Paul is what this country desperately needs today. Without it, we face a defeat much greater than anything than we have experienced in Iraq so far. We face a loss whose magnitude dwarfs any loss of security or power that could be feared from withdrawing at once.

We face a defeat of the very values that originally formed and guided this country. The values professed especially by the Republican party – individualism, free enterprise, limited government, and liberty. Ultimately, these values will be discredited simply because they will be seen as part of the discredited policies of this un-republican Republican administration.

For the truth is that to the world the occupation of Iraq is not simply a blunder. It is a neo-colonial adventure of a very savage sort. One that recalls, to many, the carving up of the globe in the nineteenth century by the European empires. And in much of the developing world today, these empires are identified, falsely, with free enterprise and individualism. Colonialism and capitalism are attacked as one.

Which is why severing the ties of enterprise to empire is the crucial task at hand for individualists and free marketers everywhere. A task only a man like Ron Paul can undertake, when all the other enemies of imperialist collectivism are also friends of socialist collectivism.

Buy this book.

As individualists, though, we know better. We know that it is only free markets (and the laws that protect them) that let the poor raise themselves out of poverty. Corrupt governments and crony capitalists can never do it. And if we cannot care for the poor, sheer self-interest should tell us that our commerce too cannot thrive in a world where people are impoverished by war and plunder.

Before defending the blundering of an inept administration this should have been the first duty of Republicans – defending the slandered honor and interests of free enterprise

Instead, today, Republicans have done what a century of communism failed to do. They have let the occupation of Iraq triumphantly resurrect collectivism from the ashes of Cold War defeat. They have given it a credibility its own performance never could.

Buy this book.

Everywhere we look, collectivists celebrates moral victories: the fiery analysis of anti-globalization activists and antiwar activists strips the corporate-state of its last fig-leaf. And rightly so.

What is truly calamitous, however, is that in the popular mind, the free market stands equally stripped as well.

That is why the important question before us now is not who will save Iraq.

For Iraq was lost the day we attacked it without just cause.

The question before us now is who will save individualism and free markets.

Tom Englehardt on the Empire of Stupidity

Posted on by

Tom Englehardt in Tomdispatch:

Forty years after Vietnam ended, the Bush administration made sure that Americans would have déjà vu all over again at least one last time. In the bargain, the president, vice president, and their top officials ensured that “the greatest force… the world has ever seen” would be a hurricane not of liberation but of destruction, the geopolitical equivalent of Katrina.

As it happened, 40 years later, the planet had changed. American military power not only would fail (as in Vietnam) to conquer all before it, but the United States would no longer prove to be the preeminent force on the planet, just the last, lingering superpower in a contest that had ended in 1991.

When, finally – 2010, 2012? – we do pack up, head home from the Iraqi dead zone, and try to forget, it surely won’t be as easy as it was 40-plus years ago (and, as the inability of our rulers to eradicate the “Vietnam syndrome” from their own brains indicates, it wasn’t so easy even then). Whether or not, as the president claims, the crop of “terrorists” he’s helped to grow will “follow us home,” something will certainly follow us home. After all, when the troops return, if they do, they will return to a “superpower” that, in population life expectancy, has plunged from 11th to 42nd place in only two decades, and, in infant mortality terms, now ranks well below many far poorer countries.

Of course, by then, the president, vice president, and those true believers still left in his administration will undoubtedly have entered the true American Green Zone, the one where a lecture to an audience of admirers can net you 75,000-100,000 greenbacks; where your story, no matter who writes it for you, will be worth millions; where your “library” can be a gathering place for “scholars”; and the “institute” you sponsor, a legacy recreating locus. It’s a zone in which the accountant, not accountability, rules.

In the meantime, we live with all the pointless verbiage, the “debate” in Washington, the “progress reports,” and the numerology of death, while the Bush administration hangs in there, determined to hand its war off to a new president, while the leading Democratic candidates essentially duck the withdrawal issue and the bodies pile ever higher.

It’s important to remember, however, that there was once quite another tradition in America. Whatever our country was in my 1950s childhood, Americans were still generally raised to believe that empire was a dreadful, un-American thing. We were, of course, already garrisoning the globe, but there was that other hideous empire, the Soviet one, to point to. Perhaps the urge for a republic, not an empire still lies hidden somewhere in the American psyche.

Let’s hope so, because one great task ahead for the American people will be to deconstruct whatever is left of our empire of stupidity and of this strange, militarized version of America we live in. We can dream, at least, that someday we’ll live in a world where one Defense Department is plenty, where militarized corporations don’t have endless battlefields on which to test their next techo-toys, where armies are for the defense of country, not to traipse the world in a state of eternal war, and victory is not vested in imperial conflict on the imagined frontiers of the planet, but in “progress reports” concerned with making life everywhere better, saner, and more peaceable.

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project. His book, The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), has just been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture’s crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq.

[Note: Two recent essays which explore allied topics to those considered in this post are well worth checking out: “Destruction: American Foreign Policy at Point Zero” by Gabriel Kolko in which the historian wonders “why the U.S. makes the identical mistakes over and over again and never learns from its errors”; and “The Waning Power of the War Myth” by Salon.com’s fine essayist Gary Kamiya on Bush’s absolute “addiction” to American triumphalism. “[Bush] will go down,” concludes Kamiya, “certain that he was right, living the Myth to the end. And because of his addiction to unreality, many more real people will die.”]

Copyright 2007 Tom Engelhardt