Orion's picture

    Why War? The Military Industrial Complex Doesn't Care About You

    In a recent speech, Pope Francis said bluntly that "our economic system leads to war." In an interview with Michael Maiello that I did for this website, Maiello said in response to one of my questions that "capitalism isn't designed to care and no amount of socially conscious corporate governance or philanthro-capitalism can change that.  We picked a system that makes it possible to manage materials but that doesn't meet human emotional needs at all."

    War is an odd thing and I think those of us who have gotten old enough to have lived through several (either on the sidelines from much farther away or even in them) have recognized, whether we admit out loud, that the characters involved are almost superfluous. It's not about religion or skin color or geographic location. What is paramount is the need and desire for the war among its fiercest aggressors.

    Decades after the Vietnam war, we began trading and accepting envoys from the Vietnamese as if nothing happened. We didn't win. When American presidents have visited, they have been pictured next to large statues of Ho Chi Minh and Saigon has still not reverted to its old name. On the cusp of that war, Dwight Eisenhower warned about the "military industrial complex," having seen the danger of the post-World War II system that brought the Vietnam war about. The term "military industrial complex" itself is brilliant - it illustrates that the process for war is mechanical and rather impersonal. It simply needs to keep going to regenerate itself and compels everyone who becomes involved in it, even if, like Obama, their politics were opposed to it previously.

    We make a mistake in reducing what is going on in Ferguson to just race and racism.. Of course that is an element and perhaps the guiding element for the police there. However, if we marginalize it in to that narrative, we fail to see the bigger picture. As Maiello said to me, capitalism is not seeking to hurt you or make you feel good. If it does either,that is almost beside the point. War makes some serious cash seriously fast - by defense spending numbers in the United States it may make more money than anything constructive possibly could - and someone needs to use those tear gas canisters somewhere on someone to keep the industry going. It could be in Gaza or it could be in Missouri, maybe even both:

    While President Obama may condemn police action in Ferguson, he continues the military industrial complex by becoming the fourth president to bomb Iraq - with the brash absurdity of bombing a group that is armed with American weapons. Bombing its own guns - what illustrates the military industrial complex better than that? There are literally pictures of John McCain with ISIS leaders - apparently they weren't terrorists yet when he took that shot.

    These three situations aren't unrelated, even if the cast of characters is totally different. It understandably is particularly disturbing that an unarmed teenager and Huffington Post and Al Jazeera reporters found themselves targeted by the military industrial complex but this has been a long process. Perhaps it coming to fruition at home, instead of just in some foreign country somewhere, will make people wake up.

    Comments

    This "the U.S. armed ISIS" story is pretty questionable.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/23/did-the-us-really-arm-and-train-the...

     ISIS started out as Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was the sworn enemy of the Americans from the start.

     We can go on about the military-industrial complex, but the Yezidis were being massacred, and it will be bad for both Iraq and America if ISIS takes over. That doesn't prove the air strikes are justified--I'm still on the fence--but I'd like to hear a more substantial argument against it than the standard riffs against "the military-industrial complex".

     


    I didn't really expect someone to quote PJ Media here but I've been told Dagbloggers come from various political dispositions. Roger Simon and his ilk are establishment conservatives who set up that site to apologize for the Bush administration during the Bush years. One would expect them to reflexively defend an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, right or wrong.


     PJ didn't say anything in defense of the air strikes(in this article, that is). They were criticizing the claim that the U.S. armed ISIS. It would be strange if we did, since ISIS evolved from an organization which was founded to fight us.


    The conspiracy theorists on Islamic terrorism do tend to be spread across the political spectrum. But within each political persuasion of theorists, they tend to have more active minds when it's not "their guy" in charge as president or CIA chief or whatever. Every now and then you see something like this article within a political group, saying basically: c'mon guys, get real, make sense, everything happening in the world cannot be a false flag, and the guy in charge that we dislike cannot be both incredibly competent at plots and incredibly incompetent at the same time.


    I do not know if the original title has been changed but here is what it says now followed by an editors note.

    Blowback! U.S. trained Islamists who joined ISIS

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Since publication, this story has been corrected to clarify that the fighters trained in Jordan became members of the ISIS after their training.]

    PJ Tatler acknowledges what is almost certainly true. My emphasis;

    It’s possible that some fighters trained by the US in Jordan ended up joining ISIS, but that’s not the same as the US knowingly arming and training a terrorist group, which is implied in the WND article and that Senator Paul states as fact. 

    snip

    Are there US-run training camps in Jordan for Syrian rebels? Yes, we’ve been training members of the Free Syrian army for years there. But other than these anonymous “Jordanian officials,” who else has said we trained ISIS members?  [PJ Tatler]

     I didn't see any mention of false flags or conspiracy theories in either article.I suppose that if one were to conclude that the U.S. trained anti-Assad fighters that it would be safe to say that some combination of people conspired to help the insurgency in Syria succeed but according to Tatler that is a fact, not a theory.


    The widespread meme that the Islamic State is trained and funded by the US or Israel seems to have come from Iranian sources. All of these claims have proven to be weak or absurd such as the nonexistent Snowden documents about Mossad training its leadership. Iran is extremely frightened because the IS is already on their border. Their dropping of Maliki and installing this new puppet, al-Abadi in Baghdad and a new fixer, Adm Ali Shamkani, shows their panic. People who parrot this weak propaganda seek to use it for their own reasons although some are Iranians or Iran sympathizers. This type of bogus claims also seems to soften the harsh reality that the Islamic State is a free agent acting under their own agenda and will be very difficult to counter.

    Funny, Krugman takes up the same topic today and, I think, botches it.  Krugman wonders why we even have war when the economic effects tend to be poor for both victor and vanquished.  I think he misses that while the effects might be bad for the victor's economy over-all that there are benefits that go to politically influential sectors.


    Latest Comments