Carl,
Well of course, if there were a concerted effort to immediately switch to clean
energy, to rebuild roads and bridges, to extend the internet to every corner of
our land, to restructure our health care system, there would be lots and lots
of jobs. Think about all those jobs that FDR created. The government was paying
artists to paint and write books. It was paying young people to work in the
forests, and to rebuild infrastructure. Our government could pay young people
to go to other lands and do what the Peace Corps did. I've been reading
articles about money. The government creates it. They created it to bail out
the banks. It's just a matter of priorities.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 4:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will Trump Agree To the Pentagon's Permanent War
Miriam,
Sadly, there are many indicators pointing to a "secular end time" that sounds
like Armageddon.
And what troubles me is that there is no easy way to back out of this rush to
self destruction. Closing military facilities overseas and bringing the troops
home would put huge stress on our unemployment , not only with the addition of
those displaced service persons, but by the large number of civilians out
placed through reduction in production of military equipment. The American
Working Class would be hit with a depression that would make the 30's look like
a time of plenty. It is amazing to me, that during war time we seem to never
run out of money, but when we start talking about rebuilding the American
infrastructure, full funding of our public education, single payer health
insurance, free day care for working parents, subsidized Elder Care, suddenly
our congress can't let loose of a single red cent.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/17/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Vijay Prachad says that we are now being ruled by the military. He
cites the amount of money in the military budget versus the amount in
the budget of the State Department, and the fact that the first
appointments that Trump made, were of generals. He also calls the
Trump administration, the last administration.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will Trump Agree To the Pentagon's
Permanent War
The question is not, "Will Trump Agree To the Pentagon's Permanent War?"
The real question should be, "Could Trump do anything about the
Pentagon's permanent war, even if he wanted to?"
Presently the Pentagon rules at the pleasure of the 1% Billionaires.
A follow up question might be, "If the Ruling Class attempts to direct
the Pentagon in a direction the Pentagon does not want to go, will the
Pentagon simply take over control?"
History would indicate that when a Ruling Class depends upon a strong
military to hold onto control, the day comes when the military simply
takes over. Sadly, as seen by the coup in Egypt, the rank and file
citizen's lot is not improved. But it sure changes life for the
clique running the nation's military.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/15/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Will Trump Agree To the Pentagon's Permanent War By Gareth Porter,
www.middleeasteye.net May 14th, 2017
Photo: A US soldier mans a weapon at the tailgate aboard the
helicopter carrying US Defence Secretary James Mattis as he arrives
at Resolute Support headquarters in the Afghan capital Kabul on April
24, 2017. (AFP)
If Trump approves expected proposals for the three countries, the US
ground combat role in the region will be extended for years to come
The two top national security officials in the Trump administration -
Secretary of Defence James Mattis and national security adviser HR
McMaster
- are trying to secure long-term US ground and air combat roles in
the three long-running wars in the greater Middle East - Afghanistan,
Iraq and Syria.
Proposals for each of the three countries are still being developed,
and there is no consensus, even between Mattis and McMaster, on the
details of the plans. They will be submitted to Trump separately,
with the plan for Afghanistan coming sometime before a NATO summit in
Brussels on 25 May.
But if this power play succeeds in one or more of the three, it could
guarantee the extension of permanent US ground combat in the greater
Middle East for many years to come - and would represent a
culmination of the "generational war" first announced by the George W
Bush administration.
'Open-ended commitment'
It remains to be seen whether President Donald Trump will approve the
proposals that Mattis and McMaster have pushed in recent weeks.
Judging from his position during the campaign and his recent remarks,
Trump may well baulk at the plans now being pushed by his advisers.
The plans for the three countries now being developed within the
Trump administration encompass long-term stationing of troops, access
to bases and the authority to wage war in these three countries.
These are the primordial interest of the Pentagon and the US military
leadership, and they have pursued those interests more successfully
in the Middle East than anywhere else on the globe.
US military officials aren't talking about "permanent" stationing of
troops and bases in these countries, referring instead to the
"open-ended commitment" of troops. But they clearly want precisely
that in all three.
Shifting timetables
The George W Bush administration and the Barack Obama administration
both denied officially that they sought "permanent bases" in Iraq and
Afghanistan, respectively. But the subtext in both cases told a
different story.
A Defense Department official testifying before Congress at the time
admitted that the term had no real meaning, because the Pentagon had
never defined it officially.
In fact, at the beginning of the negotiations with Iraq on the US
military presence in 2008, the US sought access to bases in Iraq
without any time limit. But the al-Maliki government rebuffed that
demand and the US was forced to agree to withdraw all combat forces
in a strict timetable.
In December 2011, US soldiers wave at their comrades as they cross
the border between Iraq and Kuwait on the last US military convoy
carrying troops from Iraq marking the end of the presence of US army
in Iraq
(AFP) In December 2011, US soldiers wave at their comrades as they
cross the border between Iraq and Kuwait on the last US military
convoy carrying troops from Iraq marking the end of the presence of
US army in Iraq (AFP)
Despite efforts by the Pentagon and the military brass, including Gen
David Petraeus, to get the Obama administration to renegotiate the
deal with the Iraqi government to allow tens of thousands of combat
troops to stay in the country, the Iraqis refused US demands for
immunity from prosecution in Iraq, and the US had to withdraw all its
troops.
Reversing withdrawals
Now the regional context has shifted dramatically in favour of the US
military's ambitions. On one hand, the war against Islamic State (IS)
is coming to a climax in both Iraq and Syria, and the Iraq government
recognises the need for more US troops to ensure that it can't rise
again; and in Syria, the division of the country into zones of
control that depend on foreign powers is an overriding fact.
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, growing Taliban power and control across
the country is being cited as the rationale for a proposal to reverse
the withdrawals of US and NATO troops in recent years and to allow a
limited return by US forces to combat.
Now that Islamic State forces are being pushed out of Mosul, both the
Trump administration and the Iraqi government are beginning to focus
on how to ensure that the terrorists do not return.
They are now negotiating on an agreement that would station US forces
in Iraq indefinitely. And the troops would not be there merely to
defeat IS, but to carry out what the war bureaucracies call
"stabilisation operations"
- getting involved in building local political and military institutions.
Plans for Syria
The question of what to do about Syria is apparently the subject of
in-fighting between Mattis and the Pentagon, on one hand, and
McMaster, on the other.
The initial plan for the defeat of IS in Syria, submitted to Trump in
February, called for an increase in the size of US ground forces
beyond the present level of 1,000.
As part of one plan, US ground troops would lead Sunni Arab troops to
destroy IS in Syria rather than relying on Kurdish forces to do the
job
But a group of officers who have worked closely with Gen Petraeus on
Iraq and Afghanistan, which includes McMaster, has been pushing a
much more ambitious plan, in which thousands - and perhaps many
thousands - of US ground troops would lead a coalition of Sunni Arab
troops to destroy Islamic State's forces in Syria rather than relying
on Kurdish forces to do the job.
Both the original plan and the one advanced by McMaster for Syria
would also involve US troops in "stabilisation operations" for many
years across a wide expanse of eastern Syria that would require large
numbers of troops for many years.
Both in its reliance on Sunni Arab allies and in its envisioning a
large US military zone of control in Syria, the plan bears striking
resemblance to the one developed for Hillary Clinton by the Center
for New American Security when she was viewed as the president-in-waiting.
Reversing Obama's Afghanistan policy
The Pentagon proposal on Afghanistan, which had not been formally
submitted by Mattis as of this week, calls for increasing the present
level of 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan by 1,500 to 5,000, both to
train Afghan forces and to fight the Taliban. It also calls for
resuming full-scale US air strikes against the Taliban. Both policy
shifts would reverse decisions made by the Obama administration.
The US and NATO were not able to pressure the Taliban to negotiate
with the government even when they had more than 100,000 troops in
the country
Five past US commanders in Afghanistan, including Petraeus, have
publicly caIled for the US to commit itself to an "enduring
partnership" with the Afghan government. That means, according to
their joint statement, ending the practice of periodic reassessments
as the basis for determining whether the US should continue to be
involved militarily in the war, an idea that is likely part of the
package now being formulated by Mattis.
But the problem with such a plan is that the US military and its
Afghan client government have now been trying to suppress the Taliban
for 16 years.
The longer they have tried, the stronger the Taliban have become. The
US and NATO were not able to pressure the Taliban to negotiate with
the government even when they had more than 100,000 troops in the
country.
Committing the US to endless war in Afghanistan would only reinforce
the corruption, abuses of power and culture of impunity that Gen
Stanley A McChystal acknowledged in 2009 were the primary obstacles
to reducing support for the Taliban. Only the knowledge that the US
will let the Afghans themselves determine the country's future could
shock the political elite sufficiently to change its ways.
Most political and national security elites as well as the corporate
news media support the push to formalise a permanent US presence in
Afghanistan, despite the fact that national polls indicate that it is
the most unpopular war in US history with 80 percent of those
surveyed in a CNN poll in 2013 opposing its continuation.
Beltway brawl?
There are signs that Trump may reject at least the plans for
Afghanistan and Syria. Only days after his approval of the missile
strike on a Russian-Syrian airbase, Trump told Fox Business in an
interview, "We're not going into Syria."
And White House spokesman Sean Spicer seemed to suggest this week
that Trump was not enamoured with the plan to spend many more years
trying to "transform" Afghanistan. "There is a difference between
Afghanistan proper and our effort to defeat ISIS," Spicer said
Despite Trump's love for the military brass, the process of deciding
on the series of new initiatives aimed at committing the US more
deeply to three wars in the greater Middle East is bound to pose
conflicts between the political interests of the White House and the
institutional interests of the Pentagon and military leaders.
