Israel and America: Pursuing a Foreign Policy Centered Around a Perpetual War Agenda

Although Il Principe should defer to the blog War in Context to analyze the news story of Israeli claiming that weapons from Nigeria are going to Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, the story appears to be a disinformation operation aimed to bolster future American military involvement in the oil rich West African region. In addition to creating a pretext for Israeli’s main sponsor the United States to get more involved in the oil rich West African region in the future, the news report also aims to keep political pressure on Iran, Israel’s main regional power rival in the area who also serves as an American scapegoat for continued defense spending. If there is one thing Opinione has learned in becoming an international political scientist, the real motive a country pursues is usually hidden below a layer of deception and misdirection. The 2003 American invasion of Iraq proved that without a shadow of a doubt.

When it comes to analyzing geopolitical events involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a shrewd political analyst will always consider how the United States fits into the equation. Either directly contributing to events on the ground that lead to further conflict between the two groups, such as American support for the expansion of Israeli settlements in Arab territory, or using the conflict to support domestic political agendas in their own country’s, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very important issue that needs to be resolved.

The importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was reiterated in testimony given by General David Petraeus before the US Senate Armed Services Committee on March 16, 2010.

The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [CENTCOM's area of responsibility]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

As both the United States and Israel pursue foreign policies that alienate other countries in the region such as Turkey and leave both countries more isolated, the Palestinian population living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank continue to suffer the most. This is evident when the socioeconomic factors of child mortality and the condition of each country’s economies are compared.

Despite the fact that Israel enjoys a GDP of $140.3 billion, and a jobless rate of 8.3 percent with 21 percent of people living in poverty, Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaze Strip, struggle daily with a GDP of only $ 4 billion, a jobless rate of 30.3% in the West bank and 48.5% in the Gaza Strip, and a poverty level of 67% in both territories. Perhaps most striking is the 0.8% child mortality rate in Israel, compared to a 2.6% child mortality rate in the Occupied Palestinian territories.

This disparity in the socioeconomic conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel violates Article 73 of the United Nations Charter. The article stipulates that a member state which have or assumed responsibilities for the administration of territories like the Occupied Palestinian Territories who have not yet attained a full measure of self-government,

recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories.

The current socioeconomic conditions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank prove without a doubt that Israel has violated Article 73 of the United Nations Charter.

Enjoying the protection from the United States in the Security Council due to the political power of the powerful Jewish political lobby AIPAC in domestic American politics, Israel is able to violate international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and pursue apartheid like policies towards non-Jewish citizens within its borders.

The close relationship between the United States and Israel and their similar use of militarism in their foreign policies is reflected in how both the United States and Israel flout the rule of law and center their foreign policy around a perpetual war agenda. While the Israeli foreign policy is centered on the permanent Palestinian conflict, the same can be said for the United States and the continued pursuit of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war combined with ever escalating defense budgets.

With America being the most powerful player in the international system and Israel enjoying the same benefits due to its close relationship with the United States, both Israel and the United States are able to ignore the rule of international law. As the rule of law is designed to protect the interests of the weak from the strong and the weak have interests in upholding and building up the rule of law, the Americans and the Israelis will continue to break and undermine international law.

The recent story of Israeli claims of arms being smuggled through Nigeria for the Gaza strip reflects the ever-growing similarity between the United States and Israel. Something that all Americans should take pause and understand violates the basic principles the Republic was founded upon in 1776.

Japan has sangyo seisaku while America has Military Keynesianism

Contrary to the political rhetoric of supporting an unconstrained market guided by laissez-faire and capitalism, American political leaders of both political parties have supported a Pentagon run industrial policy and an elaborate system of military Keynesianism. The determination to maintain a permanent war economy and to treat military output as an ordinary economic product, even though it does not contribute to either production or consumption is now proving to be a form of slow economic suicide.

In the new book by Chalmers Johnson, Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Best Hope, the former CIA analyst presents a strong argument against the American laissez-faire economic model and reveals that the United States through its support of a permanent arms industry has supported its own “industrial policy” very similar to the Japanese model of sangyo seisaku.

In the chapter Peddling Democracy, Johnson reviews how the Japanese economic system, i.e. the combining of the private ownership of property with the state control of economic goals, markets, and outcomes resembles the way the arms industry in America is supported by political leaders in Washington.

If you don't trust the analysis of one political scholar, perhaps a recent academic paper by Heidi Garrett-Peltier and Robert Pollin, will prove to you that

dollar per dollar, more jobs are created through spending on clean energy, health care, and education than on the military. Further, we show that more middle-income and well-paying jobs are created in all of these areas. For each $1 billion of spending, over 17,000 jobs would be created in clean energy, close to 20,000 in health care, and over 29,000 in education. That same $1 billion would create only 11,600 jobs as a result of military spending. If we look at well-paying jobs, those that pay over $64,000 per year, these alternative domestic spending areas also outperform military spending. The same $1 billion would create 1,500 well-paying jobs in clean energy and just over 1,000 in the military—clean energy creates 50% more good jobs than military spending. Education, which is labor-intensive and creates many well-paying jobs per dollar of expenditure, creates close to 2,500 jobs paying over $64,000—that’s 2.5 times as many as the military.

According to the National Priorities Project, military spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has reached approximately $1 trillion since 2001, not including the cost of the surge of 30,000 troops. In fiscal year 2009, federal government outlays on the military were 17% of all outlays.

Meanwhile, energy, resource conservation, and the environment accounted for only 1% of federal outlays, while education, training, and social services made up only 2%. Military spending is therefore eight to seventeen times as high as federal education- and energy-related spending.

Even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, US reliance on military Keynesianism has, if anything, ratcheted up, thanks to the massive vested interests that have become entrenched around the military establishment. Military industries such as Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford, Connecticut and Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut crowd out the civilian economy and have greatly contributed to the long-term severe economic malaise affecting the country.

According to Johnson,

“by 1990 the value of the weapons, equipment and factories devoted to the Department of Defense was 83% of the value of all plants and equipment in US manufacturing.”

To further support the case against military Keynesianism, Johnson also published an article in Le Monde which included more information to support his analysis.

On 1 May 2007, the Center for Economic and Policy Research of Washington, DC, released a study prepared by the economic and political forecasting company Global Insight on the long-term economic impact of increased military spending. Guided by economist Dean Baker, this research showed that, after an initial demand stimulus, by about the sixth year the effect of increased military spending turns negative. The US economy has had to cope with growing defence spending for more than 60 years. Baker found that, after 10 years of higher defence spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in a scenario that involved lower defence spending.

Baker concluded: “It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy. In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment”

When compared to other industrial nations, the United States’ machine tool stock is the oldest among all major industrial nations, and marks the continuation of a deterioration process that began in the late 1960s. This deterioration at the base of the industrial system confirms the continuous debilitating and depleting effect that the military use of capital and research has had on American society and the working class.

The near total collapse of non military related manufacturing of high tech products such as proton accelerators for radiological therapy (made primarily in Belgium, Germany, and Japan) to high speed trains built by China is reflected in yearly trade deficits of over $ 300 billion.

Until more Americans begin to realize the negative effects of military Keynesianism and the flawed economic model laissez-faire capitalism, the continued slow demise of America as a superpower will continue.

The Rent is Too Dam High

During the recent seven way debate with all the candidates running for New York Governor , the break out star of the debate was Jimmy McMillan, the begloved candidate of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party. While the national media exposure will undoubtedly only reinforce popular belief that any candidate who is not a member of the Demoractic or Republican party is not worth voting for and is usually portrayed in the media as crazy, it was still refreshing to see all of the candidates who were eligible be allowed to participate.

Here is a bit of political humor with the voice of Jimmy McMillan and the animated movie Up.

Revenue stream for the NRA in Connecticut

As a former military service member and an America citizen who values all of the privileges given to Americans in the U.S. Constitution, I enjoy practicing the privilege bestowed to me in the second amendment. Although my other long cherished constitutional protections in the U.S. Constitution outlined in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments have been undermined by the Patriot Act, the right to bear arms for now is still a right not affected by the concentration of power within the executive branch of the federal government enabled by a perpetual war and the national security state apparatus. On the contrary, with the federal government focused more on external threats combined with fewer federal resources for state and local governments, the individual has to be prepared to be responsible for their own personal security. As an analyst by trade and a frequent commenter on MikeB302000, a recent trip to a gun range in the more restrictive gun law state of Connecticut, prompted an analysis of gun legislation in Connecticut.

Contrary to popular belief, Connecticut is more pro gun or to describe it more accurately more supportive of the National Rifle Association. This is clearly evident in the gun legislation that provides a revenue stream for members of the National Rifle Association. No different than other political lobby groups, the sole aim (excuse the pun) of the NRA is to benefit their own interests and members. Perhaps no greater example of this is the fact that only certified NRA instructors give and certify pistol training classes.

While in other states an individual can buy a gun after passing a criminal background check, in Connecticut an individual has to spend over $ 125 to learn how to safely handle a firearm.

BUYING HANDGUNS—PERMIT OR ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE REQUIRED

With the exception of federal marshals and parole and peace officers, anyone buying or otherwise acquiring a handgun (except an antique) in Connecticut must be a resident and present a valid gun dealer's permit, handgun eligibility certificate, or handgun permit (CGS § 29-33(b)). (The residency requirement is a federal requirement (18 USC §§ 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478. 29 and 478. 30. )

This is an insult to former members of the military who transition to civilian life and this gun safety law can only be viewed as a revenue generating stream for the NRA. Contrary to most supporters of the NRA, if Connecticut legislators were not influenced by the political lobby of the NRA, the state law requiring a gun competency requirement should include a amendment for recent military members as well as having the flexibility of non NRA members conducting the classes. Connecticut residents should have the freedom to choose who they want to instruct them and limiting the pistol competency classes to NRA instructors appears to reflect the political lobbying influence of the NRA.

One of the most logical places would be local police departments, due to the fact that in addition to the firearm training class, the gun buyer in Connecticut also has to be approved by the local police to buy the firearm. It would seem to make sense to consolidate both of these steps in one location.

To limit debate on this subject, Il Principe would like to suggest that only residents of Connecticut where this law is valid comment.

DARPA's flying Humvee

Even when you are just minding your own business and trying to read something not related to the military industrial complex (MIC), the over whelming presence of the MIC makes itself known in the strangest places. Thanks to the book, The Complex, by Nick Turse, Il Principe is well aware of how far and deep the tentacles of the MIC invade our everyday lives.

The latest intrusion occurred on Tech Republic , a web site dedicated to IT professionals who want to keep abreast of all the latest IT developments. Mixed among articles talking about Smart Phone applications, how to tweak a Windows 7 computer and a holiday gift guide for the computer geek in your family, was an article about a DARPA program that wants to give a U.S. Army Humvee the ability to fly.

If you are not too familiar with DARPA, it is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Created in 1958 as a result of the United States being surprised by the October 1957 launch of the basketball sized Sputnik satellite, the Defense Department authorized the creation of new agency headed by a former Nazi rocket scientist and SS officer Wernher von Braun. While the agency was given the mandate to ensure the United States forever maintained “ a lead in applying state-of-the-art technology for military capabilities and to prevent technology surprise from her adversaries”, since the end of the Cold War and with no major super power challenging the United States, billions of dollars has kept flowing into DARPA. All behind a wall of secrecy with little to no accountablilty and oversight as required in the U.S. Constitution for public expenditures. Like the budget for the CIA the budget for DARPA is classified but is estimated to be in the nieghborhood of around 3 billion dollars a year.

Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop an American made high speed train or other products the United States could export to foreign markets, the latest DARPA project is just the latest example of corporate welfare for politically connected defense corporations. According to the story,

Six companies got contracts for the first phase, which lasts for 12 months, including AAI Corporation and Lockheed Martin Company, which are the prime system integrators; Carnegie Mellon University and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, which will develop critical enabling technology; and Aurora Flight Sciences partnered with two Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) recipients — ThinGap, and Metis Design Corp.

While it was encouraging to read most of the reader comments in the story were against the research into developing a flying Humvee, that will undoubtedly be another colossal waste of tax payer money, the funding for another weapons project hidden behind a wall of secrecy will continue. Perhaps one of the comments by one of the readers was the most insightful and a spot on analysis of what recently happened in Iraq and the IED.

One more waster of billions by some clown in DOD who said, Wonder if they can make us a $$$$$$$$$$$? Cost of this stuff is frightening. We will soon go broke shooting $500K PLUS rockets from drones at guys with not much more then AK or RPG's as at some point we simply can no longer afford the luxury of this overly expensive technology. Folks, in case none noted, USA is broke.

Political gorilla warfare on AIPAC at Yale University

During a recent visit to Yale University, Il Principe ( The Prince) had a little fun with a flyer promoting a speech by the AIPAC chief of strategic communications.

If you are not familiar with AIPAC, it is the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, which is the third largest political lobby in Washington DC. Coming in behind AARP (old people), and the NRA (guns), AIPAC is the third most powerful lobby in Washington DC. Not comfortable with the knowledge that AIPAC’s sole purpose is to lobby for a foreign power, the Grand Prince decided to wage a little political gorilla warfare with the supporters of AIPAC amidst the ivy league corridors at Yale University.

Using a tactic the Grand Prince learned from Italian politics, Il Principe covered up the flyer that some AIPAC supporter posted and replaced it with a copy of an Op-Ed article about high-speed rail being a national security priority.


The next day, to no surprise, the Op-Ed article was taken down and the original flyer was in place. Kicking it up a notch in political gorilla warfare, the flyer for AIPAC was totally removed and replaced with another Op-Ed article, this one involving a local defense corporation and their over reliance on lucrative government contracts and perpetual war for business growth and profits.

Why Fox News is not a serious news organization

Here is a clip of CNN correspndent Jenie Moos making fun of Fox News for reporting on a story that the Los Angles Police Department would be buying 10,000 jet packs for its police force. Highlighting what a joke Fox News is as a "news" organization, the source of the news that the Los Angles police department would be buying 10,000 jet packs at $100,000 a unit, came from The Weekly World News. If you are not familiar with The Weekly World News, it is a supermarket tabloid most known for reporting on alien abjuctions and other super natural "news" stories.

Due to the popularity of Fox News, it is no surprise why the country is in the shape it is today.

Trial urged for U.S. soldier accused of Afghan murders

In a story Opinione has been reporting on since the first week in September 2010, a U.S. Army Colonel recommenced on Thursday that a court martial should be held for an American soldier charged with murdering Afghan civilians for sport, collecting fingers from dead bodies and other crime U.S. soldiers. Although most of the media in America is too busy talking about petty stories like the firing of some news anchor on CNN, the Associated Press and other news wire services have been following the story.

According to the Associated Press report:

The investigating officer who presided over last week's initial hearing in the case found sufficient evidence for Army Specialist Jeremy Morlock, 22, to stand trial on three counts of premeditated murder and other offenses for which he could face the death penalty, according to the sources.
Morlock, a corporal from Wasilla, Alaska, is the first of five soldiers charged with murder in the investigation and described by prosecutors as part of a band of hashish-smoking infantrymen who menaced innocent Afghan civilians. Seven others from his unit are charged with less serious offenses.

Prosecutors characterized Morlock as the right-hand man to the accused ringleader, Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs.

Morlock's civilian lawyer, Michael Waddington, said the three slain Afghans -- two killed by grenades and rifle fire, one gunfire only -- were victims of a "rogue platoon running around killing people," and that his client, while present, "did not cause the deaths of any of these individuals."

The case against all 12 men stems from their recent deployment as part of the 5th Stryker Brigade, recently renamed the 2nd Stryker Brigade, in Kandahar province, a stronghold for Taliban insurgents.

Waddington says the case against Morlock is based on thin evidence, including statements the corporal made while under the influence of prescription drugs he was taking for pain relief, stress and sleep problems.

Pentagon officials, while stressing the charges had yet to be proven, acknowledged the nature of the allegations was damaging to America's image, and the image of the U.S. military in particular, around the world.

A Pentagon spokesman said the next Article 32 hearing in the case was set for October 19 for a soldier charged with conspiracy to commit murder of Afghan civilians.

Although some of the news wires will report this unfortunate story, none of the media outlets will explain why there are more soldiers committing these types of serious crimes. To provide that answer, the press would have to inform the public about the lower moral character requirements the U.S. Army has introduced over the last five years as a result of the never ending wars.

Media blackout on exclusion of two non establishment candidates

Even after calling all three of the network affiliates and telling them about the story, writing an Op-Ed to the four major newspapers that cover the state, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, there has been no coverage of the exclusion of Dr. John Mertons and Warren Mosler from a recent Senatorial debate hosted by two media outlets. Even though both of these candidates are on the November ballot, no one from the media thinks that excluding qualified candidates from a public debate warrants any attention.

If it wasn't the United States, anyone observing this story from an international point of view would cleary see how the press in America undermines the political process by not giving non establishment parties more media exposure. Familiar with how Silvio Berlusconi used his control of the media to launch a political party and become the Prime Minister in Italy, makes the issue even more painfully clear.

As Silvio Berlusconi once said, "If it isn't on televsion, it does not exist".

As Beppe Grillo says whenever he finishes a blog posting. They may never give up (is it in their interests?), but neither will we.

The politics of disenfranchisement in the American political process

In political science, disenfranchisement is generally defined as the practice of depriving an individual of some privilege, participatory right, voice, or immunity. Although some well-known types of disenfranchisement in the American political process that included race, gender, and age, were corrected by the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments, other types of disenfranchisement continue to negatively impact the American political process. These include felony disenfranchisement, which is the barring of people convicted of a felony from voting even after they have served their sentence and reentered society, and different types of indirect disentrancement. The prohibition of Dr. John Mertens and Warren Mosler from the Connecticut Senatorial debate on Monday night by The Hartford Courant and Fox 61, is a textbook example of indirect disenfranchisement.

The exclusion of Dr. John Mertons and Warren Mosler from the Connecticut Senatorial debate on Monday night between Richard Blumenthal and Linda McMahon reveal how both of the status quo political parties work together to protect their own political power and interests. In an election campaign dominated by over whelming anti establishment and anti incumbent rhetoric, it is no surprise that both establishment political parties are working together to prohibit independent candidates like Mertens and Mosler from participating in the public debate. Both local newspaper The Hartford Courant, and the local television stations, Fox 61, by not inviting the other two candidates who have earned a spot on the ballot, are failing in their duty to act as an independent watchdog as envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Dr. John Mertens, a Professor of Engineering at Trinity College in Hartford, was one of the first candidates to secure a place on the November ballot. Using the political party that Joseph Lieberman established after his 2006 democratic primary loss to Ned Lemont, Dr. Mertens is the U.S. Senatorial candidate for the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. In addition to the Connecticut for Lieberman candidate, Warren Mosler, an internationally renowned financial and job creation expert, is the Independent Party candidate who has also earned a place on the November ballot. It is a disservice and an injustice to Connecticut voters not to invite these two qualified and competent candidates from participating in the public debate.

In stark contrast to a career politician on the democratic ticket or the multi-millionaire politician on the republican ticket, the non-establishment candidates running for U.S. Senate in Connecticut are far more representative of the Connecticut residents they will represent in Washington D.C.

Prohibiting these qualified and eligible candidates from participating in the televised debate exposes how the democratic and republican parties are able to maintain a stranglehold on political power in America. Already hampered by not having the private resources to buy media coverage or a staff of professional political strategists such as Linda McMahon is doing, the exclusion of non-establishment candidates like John Mertens and William Mosler is one of the leading factors as why the United States is listed as only the 18th most democratic country in the world in the Economist Magazine Democracy Ranking Index.

The lack of press coverage concerning the exclusion of John Mertens and Warren Mosler in the first public debate among the Connecticut Senatorial candidates reveals how the change promised by some politicians has to also come from institutions like the press and from the level of involvement of everyday citizens in the political process.