Exploiting War as a Way to Resuscitate a Waning U.S. Economy?

Posted on by
M1A1 Abrams tanks sit parked at a secured compound at the Besmaya Combat Training Center. The last shipment of M1A1 Abrams tanks arrived mid-August completing the Government of Iraq's purchase of 140 tanks through a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the United States. — Photo by Army Staff Sgt. Edward Daileg

M1A1 Abrams tanks sit parked at a secured compound at the Besmaya Combat Training Center. The last shipment of M1A1 Abrams tanks arrived mid-August completing the Government of Iraq’s purchase of 140 tanks through a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the United States.
— Photo by Army Staff Sgt. Edward Daileg

INTRODUCTION

The mighty U.S. military industrial complex (MIC) continues to swell, particularly after two decade-long, trillion dollar wars and a post 9/11 world wrought with conflict. A 2012 CNBC report concluded that among the ten biggest U.S. government contractors, defense contractors secured a remarkable nine of the ten spots (Toscano, 2012). These mega-Fortune 500 companies rake in thousands of government contracts, totaling over a hundred billion dollars a year. Many of the contracts involve classified and or proprietary technological projects, making it very easy to monopolize markets and inflate costs. The Buy American Act (41 USC § 10a-d) further enables U.S. defense industry conglomerates to eliminate foreign competition and fix their grip on the market. With multi-billion dollar profits on the line, defense industries spare no expense employing powerful lawyers and lobbyists. The sheer size, scope and profitability of these corporations, courtesy of the taxpayer, make them popular investment opportunities for public and private citizens alike. The perpetual state of war and resultant profit-mongering raises concern about the actual role and or influence of the MIC in U.S. foreign and economic policy. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of a growing military industrial complex’s search for profits warping foreign policy and the traditional American way of life. Alas, half a century later we have yet to heed this warning.

EXPANDING U.S. WEAPONS SALES ABROAD: GOOD OR BAD FOR AMERICA?

The U.S. makes the best weapons and weapon countermeasure systems in the world. Its closest competitor, Russia, continues to suffer from aging technology and infrastructure, rampant corruption and decreasing demand for obsolete, legacy Soviet weaponry.  According to 2011 estimates, the U.S. held roughly 75 percent of the global arms market with related output constituting just ten percent of all U.S. exports; thus, leaving some room for expansion in the midst of a weakening Russian market, struggling U.S. economy and a slew of simmering global conflicts (Shanker, 2012).

While U.S. government (USG) defense spending makes up, on average, only five percent of current GDP, this figure fails to capture this powerful industry’s influence on the greater economy and U.S. politics (O’Connell, 2012). The MIC has economic implications beyond government spending. The MIC employs millions of U.S. workers (many of which are highly skilled scientists and engineers); bolsters hundreds of smaller start-up companies/sub-contractors; engages in significant investments in high tech research and development and adds billions more to U.S. net exports (Kazmierczak 2007). Proponents of the MIC contend that reductions in defense spending would lead to thousands of Americans out of work; many companies shutting down; a sharp reduction in U.S. exports;  a threat to America’s competitive edge in the technology industries, military influence and national security interests abroad (2007).

Proponents of the MIC also claim that USG support of military equipment sales expansion in a high-demand market could mean great things for U.S. GDP. However, is U.S. GDP more important than the implications of weapons proliferation in particularly volatile parts of the globe? The proliferation of advanced U.S. weapons systems in certain regions is sure to fuel an arms race and further escalate tensions during a particularly low point in U.S. foreign relations. There is also an increased risk of advanced weapons getting into the wrong hands. The Pentagon’s foreign military aid budgets remain significantly larger than State Department development budgets, leading one to ask whether today’s foreign policy goals are geared more toward securing military alliances than fostering good governance and stable economies abroad. Perhaps it is more about big business politics than spreading peace and stability? Is this push for profits over peace putting our nation at risk?

WHAT DOES THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THINK?

Faced with a struggling economy in the aftermath of four stimulus packages and two costly wars, President Obama’s economic team has struggled to find alternatives to the traditional Keynesian approach of increasing government borrowing to supplement consumer spending. In early 2010, the Obama team turned to another tool to boost GDP, net exports (Cooper, 2010). The National Export Initiative (NEI), a bold strategy focusing on doubling U.S. net exports by 2014, was unveiled during the 2010 State of the Union Address. While the exact terms of the plan remain somewhat elusive, one particular aspect of the strategy continues to generate controversy among counter proliferation circles. Specifically, many are skeptical about the easing of export controls on the sale and transfer of U.S. manufactured weapons and related dual-use commodities (Horwitz, 2012). This policy change suggests that the Obama administration hopes to capitalize on global demand for weapons and weapon countermeasures to help bolster net exports. This initiative also suggests a possible shift to a more big business friendly, supply-side economics approach whereby the U.S. government would offer special subsidies and relaxed regulations for defense industries, making it easier to sell abroad. This recent shift could ultimately stall, if not curtail, any hopes of securing peace and stability in the Middle East and East Asia.

WHAT DO THE NUMBERS SUGGEST?

Since initiating NEI, foreign sales of weaponry between 2010-2011 rose by $21.4 Billion to $66.1 Billion, marking the largest single-year sales total in the history of United States arms exports (Shanker, 2012).  Below are few examples of major foreign weapons sales since 2010:

  •  Saudi Arabia – 84 advanced F-15 fighters for a record $29.4 billion deal, $1.7 billion in upgrades to its missile defense systems a variety of ammunition, missiles and logistics support, and upgrades of 70 of the F-15 fighters and dozens of Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, (Shanker, 2012 and Samaan, 2013).
  • UAE – Sale of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, an advanced antimissile shield that includes radars and is valued at $3.49 billion ($12 billion over four years), as well as 16 Chinook helicopters for $939 million (2012).
  • Oman – 18 F-16 fighters jets for $1.4 billion (2012).
  • Kuwait – $4.2 billion in weaponry, including 60 Patriot Advanced Capability missiles, 20 launching platforms and 4 radars (2012)
  • India – 10 C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft, valued at approximately $4.1 billion and 107 F414 engines to be installed on the Tejas light combat aircraft valued at approximately $822 million (The White House, 2010).
  • Japan – purchased for an unknown amount the U.S. Aegis missile defense system, as well as Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) IA interceptors, early-warning radars, and command and control systems (Cooper, 2010).
  • Iraq – $6 billion for 32 F-16 fighter jets with $12 billion in additional deals pending

Pledges for Fiscal Year 2014:

  •  Israel – Increase in military aid from $2.4 to $3.1 billion, including $220 million for Israeli missile-defense systems (complementing the extant $460 million) (Samaan, 2013).
  • UAE – $5 billion in F-16 fighter jets (2013).
  • Egypt – 20 F-16 fighter jets and 200 advanced, M1A1 Abrams tanks as part of a multi-billion dollar aid package

The above data illustrates a major policy shift in military aid, particularly in East Asia and the Middle East. Clearly, the U.S. MIC has exploited NEI and fears of an Iranian or North Korean missile strike to secure multiple, multi-billion dollar sales. The recent spike in tensions throughout the Middle East and Korean peninsula provide a convenient catalyst for sustaining billion dollar arms deals as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down and U.S. defense budgets shrink (Zengerle, 2012). Some may even find it ironic that amid drastic cuts planned for the U.S. missile defense program, fears of a North Korean missile strike peaked, only to fizzle after new budget deals were reached and additional missile defense systems were rapidly deployed throughout the Western U.S. and Pacific Theater (Wong, 2013, Bell, 2013 and Stewart, 2013). Additionally, capitalizing on potential threats of an Iranian missile strike paved the way for multiple, multi-billion dollar arms deals with Israel, Egypt and many Arab countries tied to Western oil and gas markets (e.g. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain) (Shanker, 2012, Shalal-Esa, 2012 and Samaan, 2013). The ultimate question is whether this is the result of actual geopolitical events and legitimate threats, or a carefully scripted agenda to bolster U.S. influence in these regions, dominate the global arms trade market and secure significant profits for the MIC?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE (FAT) GOOSE MAY NOT BE GOOD FOR THE GANDER

Keynesian economic theory suggests that government deficit spending is good policy for supplementing shortages in consumer spending, hinging on the dollar multiplier effect. When applying this theory, pumping billions into U.S. based industries should be good thing for the economy, right? Wouldn’t this provide a GDP boost from government spending, business expansion, greater investments in technology and more jobs?

There are two main issues with applying the Keynesian model to today’s struggling economy amid two wars. One problem is that the government spent money it did not have, merely shifting a larger economic crisis to future generations. The other key issue is that the MIC represents only a small fraction of U.S. industry and employment. The billions pumped into these war machines benefited only a small portion of the economy while constraining other economic sectors. The end result was little or no return on the borrowed dollar, thus no improvement for the economy in the short-term. This risky, short-sighted approach to doing business is strikingly similar to the very same practices which led to the recent financial collapse. Could this be yet another example of profit-grabbing corporate interests infiltrating government policy making?

When shifting to a supply-side or trickle-down economics approach, a similar outcome emerges. Special tax subsidies and relaxed export control regulations may enable the MIC to ship more products overseas and increase net exports, but the net benefits are still confined to a small portion of the economy. Ultimately, speculation that the USG is hedging its GDP boosting hopes on increased foreign sales of weapons systems does not hold water. Recent efforts to boost arms exports are more likely linked to political pandering than real economic reform. The MIC is most likely looking elsewhere to sustain and or boost short-term profits in the midst of drastic cuts to defense spending and using its powerful lobby to make it happen. The practice of letting these profit-based companies dictate U.S. policy, like President Eisenhower posited, poses enormous risks on the American way of life. Will the American people continue to let MIC profit seekers selfishly escalate global tensions under the guise of economic reform?

By Ryan Daniels

May 30, 2013

Works Cited:

Bell, Larry. (2013, March 24). Obama’s North Korean and Iranian Missile Defense Trajectories: Course Corrections; Russian Re-set Dud. Forbes. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/24/obamas-north-korean-and-iranian-missile-defense trajectories-course-corrections-russian-re-set-dud/

 

Cooper, Helen. (2010, January 28). Obama Sets Ambitious Export Goal. The New York Times.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/business/29trade.html?_r=0

 

Entous, Adam and Julian E. Barnes. (2012 August 23). U.S. Plans New Asia Missile Defenses. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577605591629039400.html

 

Horwitz, Sari. (2012 May 02). Obama Plan Would Ease Weapons Export Rules. The

Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-02/politics/35458747_1_export-rules-export-control-draft-rule

 

Kazmierczak, Matthew and Michaela Platzer. (2007 March). Defense Trade: Keeping America Secure and Competitive. A report prepared by: U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Retrieved from http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/issues/defense/files/defensetrade.pdf

 

O’Connell, Aaron B. (2012 November 4). The Permanent Militarization of America. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/the-permanent-militarization-of-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Samaan, Jean-Loup. (2013 May 10). U.S. Arms Sales All About Iran. Al-Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/05/us-arm-sales-iran.html

 

Shalal-Esa, Andrea. (2012 November 6). U.S. Clears Sale of Lockheed Missile Defense

System to UAE, Qatar. Reuters. Retrieved from

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/06/us-lockheed-missiles-mideast-idUSBRE8A507J20121106

 

Shanker, Thom (2012 August 8). U.S. and Gulf Allies Pursue Missile Shield Against Iranian Attack. The New York Times. Retrieved from                 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577605591629039400.html

 

Shanker, Thom (2012 August 26). U.S. Arms Sales Make up Most of Global Market. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in2011.html

 

Stewart, Phil and David Alexander. (2013 March 16). U.S. to Bolster Missile Defenses to

Counter North Korea Threat: Hagel. Reuters. Retrieved from

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/16/us-korea-north-usa-defense-idUSBRE92E0SV20130316

 

Thompson, Loren B. (2010 June 8). White House Export Goals Require More Weapons Sales. A Report Prepared by: The Lexington Institute. Retrieved from

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/white-house-export-goals-require-more-weapons-sales

 

Toscano, Paul and Jill Wineberger. (2012 June 13). The 10 Biggest U.S. Government Contractors. A report prepared by: CNBC news. Retrieved from

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42494839

 

Wong, Kristina. (2013 April). Pentagon Budget Ignores Sequester, Puts Off Cost-Saving. The Washington Times. Retrived from

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/10/base-closures-weapons-termination-2014-defense-bud/?page=all

 

Zengerle, Patricia. (2013 April 12). Congressman Who Made North Korea Nuclear Comment Opposes Missile Defense Cuts. Reuters. Retrieved from

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/12/us-korea-north-usa-lamborn-idUSBRE93B14D20130412

 

Iraq’s Descent Back into Violence

Posted on by
STRINGER / REUTERS FILE PHOTO A man with a chemical mask on his head searches for survivors from the rubble of a damaged area, what activists said was a result of an airstrike by the Syrian Regime, in Al-Sukkari neighbourhood in Aleppo April 7, 2013.

STRINGER / REUTERS FILE PHOTO
A man with a chemical mask on his head searches for survivors from the rubble of a damaged area, what activists said was a result of an airstrike by the Syrian Regime, in Al-Sukkari neighbourhood in Aleppo April 7, 2013.

April 2013 has gone down as the deadliest month in Iraq since June of 2008 when the worst of the insurgent violence was finally beginning to diminish.  The casualty figures are staggering with the United Nations reporting 712 people killed last month, including 117 members of the Iraqi security forces.[i]  Whether or not one believes the rhetoric related to any “success” in the country achieved by the U.S., the numbers unmistakably mark a deadly turn in Iraq.

Iraq is the center lynchpin of the Middle East.  As such, any major event in the region will affect Iraq.  When the event in question is regional destabilization engineered in Washington, not only will Iraq feel the effects, but it will become a major political player.  The growing civil war in Syria has provided just this regional destabilization.  As the conflict becomes ever more polarized along sectarian lines, the Sunni-Shia instability inside Iraq has once again been rekindled.  As the battle for Syria intensifies so will the bloodshed in Iraq.

The dramatically increasing violence in Iraq is a testament to the true end state the U.S. achieved in the Iraq War.  Chaos, corruption, and bloodshed appear the biggest winners with democracy a distant memory and peace completely eliminated.  The rising violence again threatens to rip Iraq in half along sectarian lines.[ii]  Iraq’s Sunnis are flocking to the jihad against Bashar Assad’s Iranian (Shia) backed regime.  To support this migration of international jihadists, large scale Sunni extremist (Al Qaeda linked) camps have sprung up in Sunni strongholds such as Tikrit and Mosul where training, arming, and equipping of these soldiers have been ongoing.  Countering this Sunni mobilization is the Shia dominated Iraqi government that retains close ties to Tehran, which represents the Shia majority population in Iraq.  The divided loyalties within the Iraqi population and government nearly assures greater violence and bloodshed that threatens to not only spill over into adjoining countries, but redraw the political lines of the Middle East once the dust settles.

Tehran and the Shia aligned Iraqi government have strong interests in maintaining Assad’s regime.  The Iraqi government provides support in part by allowing the shipment of arms and supplies across Iraq to Syria.  However, a large percentage of Iraqis are firmly aligned with the Sunni rebels.  These rebels are dangerously aligned with Al Qaeda linked Sunni extremists united in their attempt to overthrow Assad.  In fact, Syrian rebels fighting under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood may be the most “moderate” of the rebels, which should forewarn the U.S. that a rebel victory will be a disaster for U.S. security in the region.  This confliction of intrastate interests set the stage for an explosive situation in Iraq that can only get worse as regional and world powers jockey for influence in the Syrian Civil War.  Ironically, the U.S. has decided to support the very same Al Qaeda affiliated Sunni extremists that the U.S. fought in Iraq throughout the previous decade.  Further, the U.S. has now branded these former AND CURRENT terrorists as “legitimate” and have been covertly arming, training, equipping, and advising these known terrorists from camps in Jordan, Turkey, and within Syria.  Ominously, as B2Wire analysts accurately predicted and REPEATEDLY warned, the United Nations has now confirmed that these terrorists have acquired and used the nerve gas Sarin, which is one of the most deadly chemical weapons in military arsenals.[iii]

Black Box Wire has repeatedly warned of the consequences of U.S. interventionist policy in Syria.  One must question the legitimacy and wisdom of supporting known Islamic extremists aligned with international terrorist organizations now in possession of chemical weapons.  These Al Qaeda linked terrorists have clearly stated goals of attacking the U.S. after they finish in Syria.  Their threats to the U.S. are unambiguous.  The notion of allowing our enemies to kill themselves off in Syria is not beyond Machiavellian designs, but holds little water when the U.S. is actively supporting their efforts.  This will only result in better trained, armed, and organized enemies of the U.S. and further perpetuation of war.  Ominously, this will also lead to Al Qaeda terrorists obtaining more military grade chemical weapons, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-armor weaponry.  These advanced weapons WILL be used against the U.S. and its interests.  Elites within the U.S. that have handsomely profited from perpetuating war and incrementally increasing their power and control of the American people through fear and manipulation will be the only ones to benefit.  As for the rest of America and a large portion of the people of the Middle East, we will all suffer the repercussions and blow back of dangerously stupid U.S. Middle Eastern Policy.

 

By Guiles Hendrik

Part II: The Military-Industrial Complex Strikes Back: North Korea and War for Profit

Posted on by
USS Fitzgerald launches missile in missile defense drill; Source: http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2012/10/25/largest-missile-defense-flight-test-in-history/

USS Fitzgerald launches missile in missile defense drill; Source: http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2012/10/25/largest-missile-defense-flight-test-in-history/

Confirming B2Wire analysis from April 10, 2013, it appears that North Korea has put away its missiles and has now suddenly become a “non-threat.”  Not so ironically, the appearance and disappearance of the “imminent” threat North Korean missiles posed to the United States directly corresponded with the implementation of Sequestration and defense cuts and then their subsequent quiet reprogramming “back” into the budge by President Obama.  Once again the American public has been manipulated and robbed by the military-industrial complex.

At the start of the North Korean missile crisis, serious fear mongering and media hype surrounded the threat North Korean missiles “suddenly” posed to the United States.  Totally unfounded headlines about North Korean missiles with nuclear weapons able to reach the U.S. seemed to appear like graffiti on headlines of all of the major media outlets.  However, B2Wire analysts correctly assessed this “new” threat was nothing more than a well-funded publicity stunt by the defense industry to recoup and protect their massive, yet redundant and unnecessary defense projects.  Although war rhetoric and coverage of North Korea spiked, an in-depth review showed nothing had fundamentally changed respective of North Korean missile capabilities to justify the sudden crisis.  However, as B2Wire pointed out, over a 100 billion dollars in unnecessary missile defense programs were to be cut out of the future defense budget and it was the aerospace/defense contractors such as Raytheon Co, Lockheed Martin Corp, and Boeing Co that suddenly became willing to risk pushing the U.S. to the brink of war to protect their contracts (http://www.blackboxwire.com/2013/04/10/the-military-industrial-complex-strikes-back-north-korea-and-war-for-profit/) .

The created North Korean missile crisis sought to use the threat from North Korean missiles to justify funding missile defense programs destined to be scaled back or cut.  The defense lobbyists’ scheme worked like this:

The less money for the defense missile programs, the more North Korea will be presented as an imminent threat.  The more money for the defense missile programs, the less North Korea will be presented as a threat.  If the public doesn’t cry out in fear for Congress to take action, keep the heat on up to and including initiating a war.

As if choreographed, North Korea suddenly became non-threatening just after funding was again restored to the defense budget for these massively wasteful missile defense programs.  Not only are the programs unnecessary and highly overpriced, but they are redundant and inferior to ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities already fielded in theater.  The military-industrial complex once again created a crisis (North Korean missile threat) and used it to scare people into opening their wallets in a classic Cold War ploy.  Further, instead of Congress pulling the plug on the missile programs, Congress colluded with President Obama and the defense industry to raise the taxes of average citizens to fund these wasteful defense programs instead of making the necessary cuts.  In fact, it makes the 2014 Pentagon spending request “really just an incremental budget,” House Appropriations defense subcommittee member Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., told Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130413/DEFREG02/304130005/2014-DoD-Budget-Step-Toward-8216-Grand-Bargain-8217-).  Adding insult to injury, not only is Congress maintaining funding, but the Department of Defense is buying more missile defense capabilities as a result of the North Korean false threat narrative created by well-paid defense lobbyists.

So why should you care?  Well, for one, military industrialists just brought our nation to the brink of nuclear war to secure their programs.  They clearly don’t care about your lives.  Further, instead of getting necessary spending cuts, you are getting tax hikes to cover the costs of these manufactured threats.  Finally, because these unnecessary programs are being funded, other, necessary programs are not being funded leaving our military at a net disadvantage.  B2Wire recommends calling your Congressman and Senators today and urging them to defund these programs.

 

By:  Guiles Hendrik

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/06/world/asia/nkorea-missiles-withdrawn/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119543

The Military-Industrial Complex Strikes Back: North Korea and War for Profit

Posted on by
THAAD missile launch in 2005 Source: http://www.mda.mil/

THAAD missile launch in 2005
Source: http://www.mda.mil/

Speaking in Washington on April 3, 2013, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the U.S. can’t afford to dismiss North Korean threats as bluster.  “It only takes being wrong once, and I don’t want to be the secretary of defense who was wrong once, so we will continue to take these threats seriously,” he said.[i]  Secretary Hagel is correct that the U.S. can’t afford to be wrong when it comes to North Korea’s threats of nuclear annihilation; however, one must question whether the handling of this latest episode of brinkmanship would have been better managed quietly.  Further, and more importantly, the sudden overt nature of the U.S. response raises additional questions as to what ends the U.S. aims to achieve by stoking fear of an attack.  These ends it appears are dangerously similar to the classic war for profit strategies underpinning nearly every war in history.

Investigative journalist Patrick Henningsen gets directly to the point.  He states:

One can also argue there are very powerful vested interests in the US corporate structure who have, and will continue to benefit from a heated arms build-up, and will certainly use the North Korea threat as a justification to push forward spending, especially in light of Washington’s new found austerity culture ushered in through recent budget sequestrations.[ii]

Henningsen is not alone calling out the all too ironic correlation in time between sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense and the “sudden” threat from North Korea.  Apparently, the public didn’t swallow the war with Iran and so a new boogeyman had to be resurrected “Cold War” style to justify ever-increasing defense budgets that have long since surpassed the ridiculous level.  Loren Thompson writing for Forbes.com agrees and provides an articulate and informed article that lays out why the U.S. missile defense program is more than capable of effectively eliminating the missile threat from North Korea.  As such, Thompson implicitly argues that any fear of a North Korean missile threat is baseless.  Expanding on this, Thompson then goes on to discuss how this missile “threat” will be used to justify budget lines.  He states:

The bellicose behavior of North Korea’s leaders in recent days will undoubtedly lead to calls for increased spending by the U.S. government on missile-defense efforts.  The public has grown accustomed to living in a world where Chinese and Russian leaders have the capacity to destroy much of America in an hour, because those countries appear to be run by level-headed leaders.  North Korea’s mercurial Stalinists are another matter.  So missile defense is one mission likely to escape any downturn in military spending, and with good reason.[iii]

Henningsen is no conspiracy theorist and is only rearticulating what the defense lobby has directly come out and said it would do to convince Congress to re-appropriate money cut from defense programs as a result of sequestration.  Specifically, Dan Stohr, the spokesman for the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) stated:  “We’re trying to strategize how we want to approach this in a way that really raises the volume in an effective way and convinces Congress that they need to do something about this as soon as possible.”[iv]  Based on this, it appears Stohr and the aerospace industries found their strategy, over-hyped threats from N. Korea!

The smoking gun providing the nexus between Stohr’s statements, the “created” false fear of North Korean missiles, and the defense industry is found in the cut defense programs targeting the aerospace industry.  Extremely expensive missile defense systems developed by Raytheon Co, Lockheed Martin Corp, and Boeing Co are on the budget chopping block, which threaten to cut billions of dollars from these major defense companies’ bottom lines.  Specifically, the new budget would scale back deployment of advanced radars built by Raytheon Co as well as a Lockheed Martin Corp Theater High Altitude Area Defense, “THAAD,” antimissile system, which has been heavily touted in the news recently as being deployed to Guam.  Further, President Obama’s defense budget proposal would relegate Raytheon Co’s Sea-based X-Band Radar to “limited test support” status.[v]  These giants of the defense industry are not going to take billion dollar cuts lightly and will do whatever necessary to secure this funding, including provoking war.  To this end, the defense companies would argue these are critical defense systems needed to deter the “growing North Korean missile threat,” but would not be honest.  In reality, these systems are due to be cut because over $100+ billion have already been spent on the more capable Aegis missile defense systems to include the nearly 30 ballistic missile defense (BMD) capable Navy vessels.  In fact, many of these vessels are already stationed in the Pacific and providing more than an adequate defense to any missile threat by North Korea.  As such, to prevent billions of dollars in defense contracts being cut, Stohr and his fellow captains of the military-industrial complex are risking the lives of millions by artificially creating a crisis on the Korean Peninsula.  This resurrected classic Cold War tactic (the use fear to justify massive increases in defense spending) has dangerously raised the stakes with North Korea and must be exposed before the defense contractors again suck America into another unnecessary and bloody war for profit.

By Guiles Hendrik and Ryan Daniels


[i] “Amid Threats, N. Korea’s Neighbors Rethink Defense Policies;” Tom Gjelten; April 03, 2013 3:00 PM; http://www.npr.org/2013/04/03/176166676/north-korea-has-u-s-and-south-korea-rethinking-defense-policies.

[ii] “North Korea: Beyond the Cold War Theatrics, what is the real threat?” Patrick Henningsen; April 06, 2013 14:02; http://rt.com/op-edge/north-korea-us-danger-279/.

[iii] “Can U.S. Defenses Cope With North Korea’s Missiles?” Loren Thompson, 4/05/2013; 12:57PM; http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/04/05/can-u-s-defenses-cope-with-north-koreas-missiles/.

[iv] “Defense industry shifts focus to minimizing damage from sequester;” Jeremy Herb; 02/17/13 07:00 AM ET; http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/283543-defense-industry-shifts-to-shut-off-sequester-not-stop-it.

[v] “REFILE-Obama trims missile defense request;” Jim Wolf; Feb 13, 2012; 6:46pm EST; http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/usa-budget-missiledefense-idUSL2E8DDEQ020120213.

 

It’s happening. Momentum builds as world drops the US Dollar as its reserve currency

Posted on by
Source: consciouslifenews.com

Source: consciouslifenews.com

For years economists have warned of the time when international trade will begin decoupling from the U.S. Dollar as the world’s reserve currency.  As the theory goes, the United States will face financial and economic collapse if the position of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is undermined.  In short, the U.S. can finance its massive debt because it can print its own money and nations will buy its debt.  However, if the dollar was no longer the standard world currency for trade, the U.S. could not endlessly print money and sell its debt.  The result would leave the U.S. with a choice between being unable to service payments on its debt or continue to print money and hyper inflate its currency to valueless.  Both scenarios lead to financial and economic collapse.  The U.S. would cease to exist as we know it if the theories prove true.

Until recently, these currency naysayers were slandered as alarmists or conspiracy theorists.  However, their predictions have begun coming to pass at an accelerating rate.  Already, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations have formed a financial block that seeks to reduce and then remove the dollar as the standard currency for trade.  Many other countries have bought into this transition to include key energy trading partners of the Gulf Cooperation Council such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.  Further, the world’s second and third largest economies (China and Japan respectively) have already dumped the dollar and began directly trading in their respective domestic currencies.  Specifically, in December of 2011 China and Japan agreed to direct currency trading in an effort to explicitly limit the role of the dollar [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/business/global/china-and-japan-in-currency-agreement.html?_r=0].

As this trend away from the dollar has accelerated, even traditional “Western” allies have begun to buckle to the pressures of economic reality as the dollar continues its decline.  The latest of these appears to be Australia, which just last week announced its intention to convert billions of dollars in trade with China to their own domestic currencies.  In effect, now that China, Japan, and Australia are eliminating trade in the dollar, which sets the stage for effectively closing the dollar out of Asia.

Also this week, in support of the momentum away from the dollar, Brazilian Minister of Finance Guido Mantega (L) and Chinese Minister of Finance Lou Jiwei signed a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Brazil and Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China on Bilateral Cooperation in Macroeconomic, Fiscal and Financial Policies at the 5th BRICS Summit in Durban, March 26, 2013.  The deal eliminates the dollar in about $100 billion in direct trade between the countries over the next three years and marks another milestone in the shift in international trade away from the U.S. dollar.  Alarmingly, China has now replaced the U.S. as Brazil’s main trading partner with over $75 billion in annual business.  Next up at the BRICS summit in Durban will be discussions to establish an international development bank to serve as a counter-balance to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.  All of this ultimately combines to decouple world markets from the dollar, which will undermine the U.S. strategically.

The fact is the world is dropping the dollar.  The dollar has been all but destroyed by the policies of the Federal Reserve and massive U.S. deficit spending and debt.  Regardless of what the likes of Tim Geithner or Ben Bernanke tell the American public, the rest of the world sees the US and European economies as terminally ill.  The pace of decoupling will continue to accelerate as more and more trade is conducted without the dollar.  This creates a catastrophic downward spiral of self-perpetuating collapse.  As the dollar is weakened, more countries will stop using it, and as they stop using it, the dollar will become weaker.  This trend then becomes a self-fulfilling currency disaster for the U.S.

The dire predictions of the “alarmists” are coming to pass.  It still is not known if this decoupling will lead to the dollar’s disaster, but the fact that the move from the dollar was accurately predicted lends credit to the forecasters’ conclusions.  Inflation has already affected every American at the grocery store and gas pump.  A shopping cart of groceries now costs nearly $500 and a gallon of gas $4.  Americans are at their breaking point.  Sadly, this is just the beginning.  It will get much worse as the value of the dollar continues to plummet and the cost of basic goods and services skyrocket.  As Americans suffer and elitist bankers cash in on record profits, anger may finally boil over into the streets as it has across Europe.  Any objective observer can see jobs are gone and not coming back and it’s only the elites that are getting richer while the remaining members of the middle class are bled dry with ever increasing taxes, costs, and premiums.

One does not need a crystal ball to see how this is likely to end and it isn’t pretty.  Even if suddenly Congress and the President decided to act decisively, the U.S. economy and financial system is by many accounts too far gone to be salvaged without a complete collapse and restructuring.  This means that greater pain for nearly all Americans waits in the near future.  By pain, picture pensions robbed, savings accounts pilfered, entitlements cut, spending eliminated, services non-existent, infrastructure crumbling, and even higher unemployment…and this is the best case!

By Guiles Hendrik

Additional resources:

http://www.ibtimes.com/so-long-yankees-china-brazil-ditch-us-dollar-trade-deal-brics-summit-1153415

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/30/China-Russia-Coalition-Creates-Alternative-to-IMF-World-Bank

http://dilemma-x.net/2013/03/29/australia-wants-to-cut-out-us-dollar-in-trade-with-china/

War with North Korea: Why the analysts have it wrong

Posted on by
This undated picture released by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency on March 12, 2013 shows North Korean leader Kim Jong Un (C) inspecting a long-range artillery sub-unit of Korean People's Army Unit 641 at undisclosed place in North Korea. AFP / Getty Images / KCNA via KNS

This undated picture released by North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency on March 12, 2013 shows North Korean leader Kim Jong Un (C) inspecting a long-range artillery sub-unit of Korean People’s Army Unit 641 at undisclosed place in North Korea. AFP / Getty Images / KCNA via KNS

Over the last month, North Korea has significantly escalated tensions on the peninsula by announcing it has entered a “state of war” with South Korea, closed key border areas, and announced the reactivation of shuttered nuclear facilities.  The statement, carried by the communist country’s KCNA news agency, says inter-Korean relations will be dealt with in a wartime manner.  “From this time on, the North-South relations will be entering the state of war and all issues raised between the North and the South will be handled accordingly,” the statement said, according to Reuters.  In addition, North Korea previously scrapped the armistice and in effect re-entered into an official “WAR” with the United States.  The fact that the U.S. is now in “war” and little to nothing has been said by the U.S. to the public is not only unsettling, but appears to be dereliction on the part of the White House to take this threat seriously.  This prompts the question, how serious is North Korea about re-igniting a shooting war?  Further, what are the larger strategic ramifications of North Korea’s escalation?  Our analysts believe that the White House’s position that this is just more rhetoric is failing to appreciate the strategic situation as a real and developing threat.

The intelligence community and military are no doubt paying attention, even if quietly.  Demonstrating support for this conclusion have been the rapid deployment of additional stealth aircraft and warships to the Korean theater.  Currently though, it appears that no major military preparations in North Korea are underway.  However, some activity around missile sites suggests that North Korea may conduct additional missile tests as soon as this week to further heighten tensions on the Korean Peninsula and to try and force negotiations for de-escalation.  Although, propaganda photos distributed appear to show missile trajectories that target the U.S. and its interests, North Korea doesn’t possess a proven capability to effectively carry-out such an attack.  Further, some speculate that North Korea’s boy dictator, Kim Jong Un, has not solidified his control over the military and this game of brinkmanship is designed to show his internal circle he is a capable military commander more than it has anything to do with the outside world.  This has led analysts to again conclude North Korea’s threats are just more rhetoric designed to elicit aid to the starving and backward dictatorship.

The analysis above summarizes the general mood of the intelligence community and analysts toward North Korea.  The problem is this analysis has remained static while the world has changed.  It is true that North Korea has perpetually “cried wolf,” but one must consider the game board as larger than a single peninsula.  The fact is that the position the U.S. has previously enjoyed for decades has been eroded to the point of signaling a major geopolitical power shift.  As such, one must re-evaluate motives, assessments, and ground truths.  The military and intelligence community have at least not projected outwardly they have grasped this global sea change setting the U.S. and North Korea up for potential miscalculations and disaster.

For starters, analysts haven’t grasped that how the world view of America has shifted for the worse.  In short, the U.S. now appears weak and unable to react to foreign analysts.  The U.S. military has been exhausted over the last decade of constant war.  Although the military now has a hardened cadre of combat seasoned soldiers and a conventional military unmatched globally, stock piles of supplies have been diminished, budgets have been cut, troop strengths has been slashed, and the appetite for further war is zero amongst both soldiers and citizens.  Further, the U.S. is broke and the economies of Europe and the U.S. have remained weak and teetering on collapse.  Even worse, the U.S. and NATO are seen as weak and as having been defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Irrespective of whether or not the U.S. did or didn’t not “take the gloves off” and use its full might in those wars, the world perception is one of a country weakened and in retreat much like the Soviet Union circa 1989.  Finally, the U.S. is seen as having tied itself down in a strategic struggle in the Middle East targeting Iran, while countries like China have rapidly built up their presence and military capabilities abroad.  This sets the stage for drastic strategic miscalculation.

Our analysts are arguing that Kim Jong Un is not blind or ignorant to the capabilities of the U.S. as he was raised in part in the west.  Instead, North Korea’s leader is dangerously over confident he can win a war of brinkmanship against a now weakened U.S. that is retreating globally.  In particular, the U.S. has appeared weak in the Pacific against a growing Chinese dominance and has failed to check China’s moves against Japan and inroads in Taiwan.  These areas are key to the collective perception of the U.S. by North Korea.  Further, North Korea has witnessed what they consider a far inferior enemy in Iraq fight the U.S. to a hasty withdrawal and in Afghanistan to strategic defeat.  Further, North Korea sees the U.S. military primarily focused on Iran and unable to deal with issues outside of the Middle East.  Based on this, North Korea likely assesses the U.S. unwilling and unable to prosecute a full scale war on the Korean Peninsula.  Add to the fact the U.S. economy is in shambles and the national debt is approaching default levels, one can see why Kim Jong Un suddenly has found his footing.

Unfortunately, North Korea’s assessment doesn’t change the fact that the U.S. can marshal an overwhelming strategic and or conventional military force against North Korea should rounds begin to be exchanged.  For this reason alone the U.S. remains supremely confident in its dismissive attitude.  Herein lies the serious danger for strategic miscalculation.  For the first time, North Korea and the U.S. “both” believe they legitimately can back the other down and win in the event of war based on miscalculations by analysts on both sides.  In fact, this situation is so dire, that Russia, seeing the developing crisis from its vantage point, has strongly urged both parties to de-escalate.  Considering the above from a detached perspective, we assess that a very real threat has emerged not from intent, but due to miscalculation that could quickly lead to events spiraling out of control should any side misstep.

Strategically speaking, the U.S. has far more to lose than North Korea.  Should North Korea follow through with its rhetoric, even in a limited fashion, the hand of South Korean politicians to finally retaliate may actually engulf the peninsula in war.  The fact thousands of Americans are stationed there assures large U.S. casualties in the opening hours of a major war, which would force the U.S. into a hot war.  Further, although North Korea is not assessed as having missiles capable of effectively reaching the U.S., North Korea could possible detonate a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere and generate a substantial electromagnetic pulse capable of wiping out electronics for hundreds of miles or more depending on the size of the nuclear blast, the altitude, and proximity.  This could also be catastrophic for orbiting satellites and disrupt communication, commerce, and navigation globally.

Regardless of how the war is fought, a war would undo the entire geopolitical order.  The U.S. would not have the ability to project force beyond Korea and its debt will expand beyond sustainable levels making it quite possible the U.S. would collapse from within before any long term war is concluded on a battlefield.  This frees China to force its hand in the Pacific realm and Iran to continue its programs without fear of retribution.  Even if the U.S. was to prevail, it would be at best a pyric victory as the U.S. would likely lose its empire much as England did after incurring the crippling costs of World Wars I and II.  It is now time for the White House to wake-up and recognize how the world order has changed and update its playbook before it is too late.

 

By Guiles Hendrik

Related new articles:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9960933/North-Korea-plan-to-attack-US-mainland-revealed-in-photographs.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57577110/north-korea-says-its-entering-state-of-war-with-south/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/30/us-korea-north-war-idUSBRE92T00020130330

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aggressive-talk-from-north-korea-concerns-us-leaders/2013/03/29/85dec134-989c-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_print.html

Assessing the Success of the War on Terror Part II: Return on Investment and Perpetual War

Posted on by

Part II of our series continues to evaluate the success of the War on Terror.  It is our thesis that not only has American policy and strategy failed to defeat terrorist threats to the United States from radical Islam, but it has in fact exasperated them.  Today, Al Qaeda and terrorism have become the new boogie men, replacing the Communist menace of the Cold War.  This manufactured threat has now taken on a persona of its own and has been used to justify endless war across the world.  Ultimately, it will be America’s downfall as the evidence is clear the US is losing the strategic war.

To illustrate this slide, consider the following.  On September 10, 2001, few Americans had ever heard the name Osama bin Laden (UBL) or were aware of the organization that came to be known as Al Qaeda (AQ).  Today, UBL and AQ are household names.  At the turn of the century, AQ consisted of perhaps a couple hundred fighters at most and was not broadly operational.  Today, AQ has branched into a franchise like organization recruiting operatives from Detroit, Michigan to Jakarta, Indonesia and numbering in the thousands.  In 2003, Al Qaeda didn’t exist in Iraq, but today it operates with near impunity in cities such as Mosul where it has established facilities for training and arming terrorists ready to conduct jihad in Syria and the greater Middle East.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban, which was once at least partially hostile to AQ, has fully integrated its operations with AQ extremists.  Further, the Taliban has spread beyond its original Kandahar region all throughout Afghanistan.  This includes regions previously controlled by the “Northern Alliance” and considered “immune” from the Taliban according to snake oil hacks like David Kilcullen and has now even spread over the borders into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.  Other areas to include the Philippines, Indonesia, the Balkans, the Caucuses, and Western Europe have all seen steady growth of Islamic extremism.  Considering the above, one need not dig deeper than the blatantly obvious to realize that the War on Terror has not been won and in fact, has gone horribly wrong for the US.

Operationally, AQ has shown that it is not only resilient, but growing.  The fact that AQ is still operationally capable of killing an American Ambassador over a decade into this war is not only massively embarrassing for the US, but it proves US  senior leadership and strategy have been a failure.  Simply tracking the number and location of drone strikes one can quickly conclude that not only has the theater of AQ’s operations expanded from Afghanistan to one of global influence, but that AQ’s numbers are growing faster than the United States can target and kill its leaders.  Just as discussed in Part I of this series, limited targeted assassinations and strikes have been tried over and over throughout military history and have never yielded decisive gains.  Worse, the US appears to be living in ignorance of reality.  The progressive agenda during the most recent presidential campaign wanted to proclaim Obama defeated AQ and led US leaders to a naïve sense of security as a result of whitewashing the actual threat respective of the spread of AQ.  These ideological blinders led to the death of four Americans including an ambassador in Libya at the hands of AQ affiliated fighters on no less than September 11th when America should have been at its maximum state of readiness.  Associated with this fallout is the spread of Islamic extremism, terrorism, and insurgency now throughout the northern half of Africa.  This event was accurately predicted by our analysts and has now come to fruition as the weapons looted from Gadhafi’s arsenals have fallen squarely in the hands of extremists and AQ affiliated groups.  This includes more than 20,000 advanced man portable surface-to-air missiles, which we continue to predict will soon be used against a commercial airliner.

If Libya wasn’t a big enough disaster, the US has now begun to dig itself into an even broader war in Mali and other African countries from Nigeria to Somalia.  This has already cost innocent American lives in Algeria after Islamic terrorists attacked an oil facility in retaliation for America’s support to the French in Mali.  Nonetheless, the press does not hold President Obama, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or any other senior policy maker accountable for the blood on their hands.  If American policy makers think Algeria was an isolated incident, they are ignorant and in denial of reality.  Americans appear quick to forget how well our operations in Somalia turned out and are again conducting the same type of operations clandestinely over a region thousands of times larger.  There simply is no need to involve the US in these local fights.  The blowback will be severe and certainly far outweigh any benefit except for the very few elites getting oil and mineral rights to the newly acquired lands wrought from disturbingly imperialistic motives.

Looking at AQ’s spread is not sufficient to capture the bigger strategic picture.  Not only has AQ, with the help of the US (most recently in Libya and Syria), globally expanded, but it has accomplished what even Pan-Arabism and Nasserism could not.  The “Arab Spring,” has taken down one former pro-American regime after another.  The dictators like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak that have acted as America’s brutal puppets for decades are being toppled by Islamic extremists now routinely.  In the vacuum, the Muslim Brotherhood is consolidating power and moving the Middle East and North Africa firmly toward a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam and obliterating any vestige of a secular government.  This cataclysmic reordering of the geopolitical balance of the Middle East and North Africa is far from over as history is being made before our eyes.  We predict that with covert support from the US, Qatar, Turkey, and other nations, Syria will be the next regime to fall.  This is being done for the shortsighted goals of checking Iran’s regional dominance, but will lead to one of America’s greatest policy disasters in the region.  In effect, this will allow extremists to encircle the relatively friendly nation of Jordan and the US ally of Israel.  The monarchy in Jordan will then be threatened and could be toppled and reset the Middle Eastern stage to 1973 on the eve of Yom Kippur.  If Jordan falls, a final sweep of the region for extremists will be within reach.  In fact, it is then entirely likely UBL’s originally long term goal of toppling the Saudi regime will be realized.  This would allow Sunni extremists to form an unprecedented block of power throughout the Middle East and all but eliminate US influence in the region.

In conclusion of Part II of this series, we looked at how AQ has spread from a little known entity of a few individuals to a worldwide franchise.  Only through America’s disastrous self-defeating policies has this been possible.  Now, more than a decade into a war being fought against rebels that at best are third rate, the purportedly most powerful military in the world has been checked and strategically defeated.  The US is broke just as UBL intended and Washington is being forced to make painful cuts to domestic programs that may very well lead to massive social unrest.  In the end, the Islamists hold the ground from Asia to Africa as the US is forced to pull its forces back as the debts of tax dollars vainly wasted over the last decade come due.  As such, AQ still holds the battlefield as America retreats.  Based on this and using one of the oldest measures of victory in warfare, the Islamists have won and the US has been defeated thus far in the war of East versus West.

Part III will conclude this series and discuss the return on the investment of trillions of dollars in defense and security spending.  Most disturbingly, it will look at how the “terrorist” threat is now being used to declare American soil a battleground, justify the creation of a police state, and declare citizens threats and order their assassinations in secret all while bankrupting our nation.

 

By: Guiles Hendrik

Assessing the Success of the War on Terror Part I: Pakistan and the Failure of the Drone Strategy

Posted on by
Anti-American Protest. Source: LA Times

Anti-American Protest. Source: LA Times

As the never ending War on Terror drags on into the fourth consecutive presidential term without any decisive gains, one must question not only the effectiveness and strategy, but also our very leadership.  Nowhere is the ground truth more palpable than in western Pakistan.  Since President Obama took office and significantly increased drone strikes against alleged terrorist targets, America’s ability to safely operate and influence events in the country in a manner favorable to the United States has inversely deteriorated.  This is a direct result of America’s flawed drone strategy, which has strategically weakened the U.S. in Pakistan.

According to Gallup’s poll just released, more than nine in 10 Pakistanis (92%) disapprove of U.S. leadership and only 4% approve. Remarkably, this is the lowest approval rating Pakistanis have ever given the U.S. and its leadership.  This is noteworthy as President Obama’s ratings in Pakistan have sunk far below even those of the much criticized President George W. Bush.  Further, and more ominous, 57% of Pakistanis aged 15 to 29 and 53% of those 30 or older, deem interaction with the West as a threat.

Numerous explanations for this near total disdain for the U.S. have been suggested.  What is clear is that prior to the U.S. prosecuting the War on Terror via drones inside Pakistan, Americans enjoyed relative safety and warm relations.  As such, only a fool would be unable to make the connection between drone strikes, the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, and growing hatred of the U.S.  Pakistan’s Ambassador to the U.S. Sherry Rehman makes this much explicit in her comments to reporters two days before President Obama’s nominee to be the next head of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan’s, Congressional Testimony.  Ambassador Rehman expressed Islamabad’s view that America’s continued deployment of drones was a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and was strategically counter-productive.  Specifically, she stated “We need to drain this swamp and instead it [the drone campaign] is radicalizing people.”  Rehman went on to say “It creates more potential terrorists on the ground and militants on the ground instead of taking them out.  If it’s taking out, say, a high-value or a medium-value target, it’s also creating probably an entire community of future recruits.”  Her statements are corroborated by a Pew research poll conducted last year that showed 74% of Pakistanis termed the U.S. as an “enemy.”

Our senior policy makers have failed to grasp strategy at the strategic level.  At best, they are fighting a tactical war.  Our leaders have proven themselves amateurs that are unable to mitigate and defeat even the lowest echelon of threats facing the U.S.  Further, they have no appreciation of the historical precedent respective of the use of limited cross-border strikes against insurgent type threats.  Had they done their homework and studied cross-border insurgencies, they would know that these limited surgical strikes are counter-productive just as Ambassador Rehman states.  In fact, no matter how great the tactical gains achieved are, they never result in decisive strategic gains and in fact, result in a sum net strategic loss.  Thus, war strategies reliant on limited cross-border strikes, such as our drone strikes in Pakistan, have a near perfect correlation with the counterinsurgent’s failure or better stated, the insurgent’s victory.  No further proof of this need be generated than a simple review of the contemporary hostile sentiment towards America in Pakistan.

In our Part II of this series, we will look in more detail at the results of America’s flawed strategy that has caused the spread of radical Islam across the globe, made Al Qaeda franchise, and perpetuated a fear culture to fuel unending war.

 

Sources:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160439/2012-pakistani-disapproval-leadership-soars.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20USA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21389200

The Fruits of Obama’s Failed Policy in Libya: Mali and the Spread of Islamic Terrorists

Posted on by
Mali Islamic Rebels

Mali Islamic Rebels

BlackBoxWire.com analysts are on record from before Obama unconstitutionally ordered American forces into the Libyan War warning of the fallout of this ill-conceived interventionist policy http://www.blackboxwire.com/2012/10/20/the-next-wave-of-fallout-from-obamas-failed-libyan-policy/.  The latest fallout from US actions in Libya has been the growing conflict in Mali that has now drawn French forces into open military combat.  All across the northern half of Africa Islamic militants have been resupplied with modern weapons pilfered from Libyan armories as Gadhafi’s forces were overthrown by US backed Islamists.  This injection of modern weapons compliments of horrendously misguided US foreign policy, single handedly orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, has fueled the widespread resurgence of extremist Islamic forces and allowed them to attack and defeat government forces.  This growth of conflict now threatens to destabilize the entire region.

B2W identified the significant likelihood of loose weapons falling into the hands of extremists and the dire risks it posed to regional security.  We identified the loss of potential precursor elements to weapons of mass destruction, anti-armor weapons, difficult to trace plastic explosives, and air defense weapons as of the most concern.  In particular, B2W’s previous reports have tracked the proliferation of over 20,000 man-portable-air-defense-systems (MANPADS), which are shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles that will likely result in the loss of civilian airliners within the next year.  These MANPADS have already been documented to have been used to target military helicopters as far away from Libya as Israel.  It is only a matter of time before civilian targets come under fire as retaliation French for actions in Mali.  Sadly, many innocent people will no doubt be the ones that ultimately suffer for Mrs. Clinton’s support to Al Qaeda terrorists authorized by President Obama outside the consent of the US Congress.

For those that doubt the legitimacy of these claims, CNN’s Tim Lister writes in his January 17, 2013 article:

But the fall of Gadhafi opened up a black market arms bazaar across North Africa, and western intelligence agencies believe AQIM may have acquired anti-aircraft missiles along with other heavy weapons, as well as plenty of vehicles, essential in a region of few (and dilapidated) roads.

Lister goes further and directly pins the Al Qaeda in the Maghreb’s (AQIM) rise on the weapons acquired from US actions in Libya writing:

The current crisis in Mali began in January last year, when a rebellion by ethnic Tuaregs (helped by weapons brought from Libya as the Gadhafi regime crumbled) erupted.

B2W analysis is again warning that the likelihood of MANPADS being used against civilian airliners is very high.  Further, our current policy of intervention in the region to try and “fix” what our previously bad policy wrought will only double down on failure.  B2W strongly cautions the US from being drawn into this growing regional conflict and allowing it to become the next Iraq or Afghanistan.  The US simply does not have the military bandwidth, money, or effective strategy to take on another regional policing operation.  This is not the time to increase intervention in the region, but rather to quietly cover our losses and exit as quickly as possible.  On a final note, contrary to some claims, Mali does have potentially significant reserves of natural resources to include gold and oil.  As such, B2W analysts will suggest Mali’s bad guys today that were previously “rebels and students” in Libya, that were previously “jihadists” in Iraq and “insurgents” in Afghanistan, that were “Al Qaeda” on 9/11, and that were “freedom fighters” against the Soviets are again being used in the latest conflict to justify more imperialistic resource grabs that a few elites will handsomely profit from at everyone else’s expense.

Reference:

Six reasons events in Mali matter, Tim Lister, CNN; updated 6:20 AM EST, Thu January 17, 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/world/africa/mali-six-reasons/index.html

Links to Mali’s natural resources:

http://www.oklouranium.com/ http://www.geoexpro.com/article/Mali_A_Country_on_the_Cusp/1df58242.aspx

By: Guiles Hendrik

Patriot Missiles Deployed to Syrian Border in Turkey: Another Ominous Sign of Impending War with Iran

Posted on by

Why are Patriot missiles being deployed in Turkey along the Syrian border?  Has NATO been threatened or directly attacked by Syria?  Does Syria pose a real missile threat against Turkey?  What is the real purpose behind this deployment?  Our analysis suggests the only rational threat to justify such a deployment would be clandestine preparations for a larger war with Iran.

For starters, NATO is under no threat from Syria and the Assad regime has zero interest in shooting missiles into Turkey.  Assad knows that Turkey and NATO have vastly superior forces.  To provoke a war with Turkey would be suicide for Assad.  One may point to the limited cross-border fire into Turkey some months ago as rationale, but as previous posts on B2W have shown; this too is not a valid argument.  The Patriot missile is designed to intercept medium and long-range missiles and rockets, not small, short-range munitions such as those that did hit Turkey.  Further, the evidence is not clear-cut on whether the mortars were fired accidentally by Syrian state forces or intentionally by insurgents trying to provoke Turkey to enter into the war against Assad.  The bottom line is that the Patriot missile is not designed or suited to intercept small artillery and mortar rounds such as landed in Turkey.  Other, smaller, tactical air defense systems, similar to the Phalanx or Iron Dome systems would be much more appropriate and cost effective for this mission.  However, NATO could argue that an errant SCUD missile could enter into Turkey and thus, justify the need to have anti-missile batteries staged along its border.  Again though, Syrian state forces will not dare launch a SCUD that has the possibility of landing inside of Turkey.  Even if Assad believed he could target a rebel training or refugee camp, the gain would simply not justify the cost of offensive action against Turkey and by default, NATO and the United States.

This leaves two possible situations.  The first is that NATO and Turkey fear SCUD missiles could fall into the hands of rebels (Islamic extremists) and be fired into neighboring countries such as Turkey.  The idea that rebels could end up controlling such a weapon is indeed scary, but no mention will be made in the press of this since it contradicts the “freedom fighter” image Washington has so desperately attempted to create.  Just as in Libya, these “freedom fighters” are no friends of the West and will turn their guns on Americans and American interests as soon as they finish with Assad.  Considering known terrorists may actually possess captured chemical weapons and potentially could gain a delivery platform such as a SCUD, very ugly scenarios involving Israel come to mind.  Nonetheless, the rebel use of a SCUD against Turkey still holds little likelihood; especially, considering Turkey has not only taken in many Syrian refugees, but also armed and trained many of the insurgents.  As such, we assign a very low probability of this scenario occurring and therefore it must be ruled out as a justification for placing Patriot missiles in Turkey’s border with Syria.

By using a process of logical deduction and elimination, it is clear the rationale provided to the media by the White House is not a reasonable explanation if not outright fictitious.  Therefore, other more convincing motivations must be at work.  Per B2W’s extensive analysis on Israel’s war plans against Iran (for B2W’s Israel posts go to: http://www.blackboxwire.com/category/middle-east/israel/), it is essential Syria must be first taken out of the fight.  B2W’s exclusive analysis on Israel’s war plans show that once Syria is sufficiently reduced, the second kinetic phase of the war, directly against Iran, will commence.  As CIA backed terrorists take apart Assad’s air defense installations and attrit and wear down Syrian state and Hezbollah forces, Washington is quietly moving assets into position for what looks like the predicted surprise offensive against Iran.  Critical to this prepositioning would be a missile shield to protect Israel and Turkey (a NATO member) against any retaliation from Iran.  Placing missiles in Iraq may be possible, but much more difficult and entirely unjustifiable just as it would be in other Gulf countries.  As such, to provide Turkey reasonable assurances that whether or not it actively supports and attack against Iran, its passive acquiescence can be bought by providing a missile shield and plausible deniability.

Weighing the known evidence the only likely scenario that reasonably justifies the costs of deploying Patriot missiles in Turkey along Syria’s border is preparations for a war with Iran.  Outside of this context, neither the likelihood nor the threat can explain why an anti-missile shield was established in Turkey.  As such, one must conclude that the US and Israel are one step closer to commencing an attack against Iran that will lead to disaster for all parties.  Combined with other movements of naval and air forces beyond the scope of this article, this is an ominous sign indeed for peace and stability in the region.

By: Guiles Hendrik

Senator “Chuck” Hagel’s Nomination for Secretary of Defense: Traitors Oppose Him Because He Told the Truth and Put America First!

Posted on by

What appears now to be President Obama’s imminent nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel has caused a firestorm of criticism from traitors in our midst.  In particular, Senator Hagel is under attack because he was gutsy and honest enough to state an obvious fact about the disproportionate and decidedly negative influence various Israeli lobby groups exert over U.S. policy.  Some may try to deny this fact, but I would submit that the mere fact that there is such uproar over this small statement made years ago proves how disproportionately powerful this lobby continues to be.  Then Senator Hagel didn’t stop there and was brazen enough to also boldly state that U.S. interests should come first and that he swore an oath to the Constitution!  How dare him put the U.S. first and swear allegiance to the Constitution and want to follow the rule of law!  On second thought, how dare any American criticize him for taking that stand!

Let’s separate some fact from fiction.  Senator Hagel in my book is far from a perfect candidate for the position of Secretary of Defense, but the man has a lot going for him.  For starters, he is a self-made millionaire and understands business.  The Department of Defense is the world’s largest bureaucracy so we need a good manager to rein it in.  Mr. Hagel has also openly made comments suggesting he recognizes that the interests and security of the U.S. should be placed ahead of other nations’ interests and that he recognizes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.  This too IS a good thing for America!  However, if you happen to believe that the best interests of a foreign nation should supersede those of the U.S. and you are not a foreign national, then you need to disclose yourself as an agent of a foreign government to the F.B.I. and the American public before suggesting Mr. Hagel is a bad guy for taking the side of the country he is sworn to protect.

Second, Mr. Hagel seems to recognize that the Constitution is an important and valid document.  This is a vast improvement from his predecessors, which under Congressional Testimony seem to forget that the Constitution exclusively gives the power to declare war to the legislative branch of government (Congress).  Both Panetta and Gates, when questioned directly by Congress on this subject, testified to the point that the authority to commit U.S. troops to war lie not with Congress, but the international community, whatever that is.  What it isn’t though is Constitutional.  Further, in the context of Hagel’s statements against the Patriot Act and then President George Bush’s constant push for the war in Iraq, it was quite clear that he was drawing a distinction between party politics and the best interests of a free nation.  Again, this is commendable.  Finally, Mr. Hagel voted in favor of Senate Amendment 2022, restoring habeas corpus, the right to due process, to American citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but voted against a similar resolution restoring it to non-U.S. prisoners detained at Guantanamo.  This demonstrates Mr. Hagel understands that U.S. citizens have certain unalienable rights granted by the Constitution and are materially different than foreign combatants.  The need to have a Secretary of Defense with this type of legal and ethical compass is even more important now after President Obama just signed into law the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which effectively suspends habeas corpus and allows American citizens to be captured and indefinitely detained even while inside of the U.S.  This latest law is draconian and the epitome of tyranny.  Mr. Hagel is one of the few nominees that could achieve appointment while still imparting some balance.

Third, the man actually served in the U.S. military, has seen “ground” combat in Vietnam, and earned two purple hearts.  Any one of these individually would sadly set him apart from his peers, but combined, suggests that Mr. Hagel has a healthy appreciation for useless wars with no strategy or end.  His criticisms of the War in Iraq demonstrated that not only did he see Iraq for the massive waste of life and resources it was, but also was willing to stand up and say something about it when the rest of his Senate peers quietly walked in lockstep with the Republican Party.  I for one believe anyone acting in the position of Secretary of Defense should know firsthand what it is like to be in combat, risk your life, and be put in a position where you must take the life of others.  No text book, degree, or amount of empathy can replace the raw horror of war.  As such, no one that hasn’t actually experienced war can truly appreciate what our troops are asked to do and properly formulate Department of Defense policy.

If not enough, Mr. Hagel serves on President Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board.  This is a senior position with access to highly classified information and is central to the development of security and defense policy at the Presidential level.  As such, Mr. Hagel is in the know.  What is funny is that he is criticized for his “soft” position on Iran, when he is one of the people who would be in the exact position to understand exactly what the U.S. is doing in respect to Iran, how well it has worked, and what the actual versus publicized threat of Iran really is to U.S. national security.  Further, he would also be acutely aware of the degree to which countries like Israel have lobbied to inject their interests into our policy with respect to Iran and whether or not this was in the best interests of the U.S.  Knowing all of this information, Mr. Hagel has come out against “hard” policies toward Iran as counter-productive and particularly against sanctions.  Mr. Hagel was correct in his policy prescription toward Iran in part because he is privy to information most readers honestly are not.  Second, specific to his opposition to sanctions, he was again correct in his policy prescription.  Sanctions haven’t worked against Iran and have only complicated our negotiations, made life very difficult for the average Iranian, and bolstered the regimes propaganda that Iran’s ills are being caused by America.  Finally, Mr. Hagel speaks first hand regarding the intimidation the Israeli lobby wields over U.S. policy makers.  Note, Mr. Hagel’s statements regarding Israel never suggest he didn’t believe that Israel was a U.S. ally or that the U.S. and Israel would not continue to support each other.  Mr. Hagel only stated that U.S. interests must come first.  This clear state of mind and understanding of his responsibilities to “our” nation is of the utmost importance and I applaud him for telling the truth.  If anything, one should be demanding why the media hasn’t raised such a cry for those nominees and candidates that haven’t taken such stances and seem to put America last.  This is the real story of a seditious media that lacks any real accountability and has a clear bias against “U.S.” interests in its reporting.

No nominee is perfect and this is true with Mr. Hagel.  Although, I would like to see other nominees and do believe based on the above Mr. Hagel is a much better choice for Secretary of Defense than other potential candidates, he does have critical flaws.  Specifically, even though he has voiced support for the Constitution, which today is exceedingly rare amongst politicians, he did support the Patriot Act after initially voting against it.  He also voted for FISA, which among other classified powers, gave wide surveillance and warrantless wiretapping authority to the government.  I believe the damage the Patriot Act and FISA have done to the freedom, liberty, and privacy of citizens is egregious and is difficult to reconcile with anyone truly respective of civil liberties and the Constitution.  Perhaps the only defense of Mr. Hagel on these issues is that the most invasive spying, surveillance, and detention policies these acts proscribe were only written into law and passed after he left office.  All considered, under the circumstances Mr. Hagel is likely the best nominee free Americans can hope for from this Administration, but the buyer should beware.

Posted by Guiles Hendrik

U.S. Government Actively Supplying Chemical Weapons to Al Qaeda Terrorists in Syria

Posted on by

The US Government and mass media would like the public to believe that Syrian President Assad is a threat worth committing US forces to war.  However, it is in fact the US Government that has recklessly endangered the security and safety of millions of lives.  This will include the lives of not just Syrians, but Israelis, Europeans, and Americans.  In what may prove to be one of the greatest foreign policy disasters, the US has not only allowed known Al Qaeda terrorists to capture and take control of one of the largest Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles, but actively aided it in doing so.  Contrary to the media threats and warnings about President Assad using chemical weapons, it is in fact the US backed Al Qaeda terrorists that pose, by far, the greatest threat to US interests.

The US is directly responsible for fomenting the chaos and bloodshed in Syria by covertly backing known Al Qaeda terrorists in a bid to overthrow President Assad.  This same playbook was used in Libya resulting in the disastrous proliferation of over 20,000 manportable surface-to-air missiles that have yet to be recovered and the spread of Al Qaeda to Libya.   By “backing,” one should recognize this includes providing weapons, equipment, training, medical aid, facilities, money, intelligence, and advisors to known terrorists.  Initially, this unconventional warfare was being carried out from across the border in Turkey and Jordan, but now is being actively waged on the ground inside Syria.  As we have repeatedly warned, the conflict in Syria has always been and is still aimed at creating the conditions necessary to expand the endless wars in the Middle East to Iran.  In fact, the initial targets that the “rebels” targeted in exchange for US support were Syrian air defense installations.  The seizure and destruction of these air defense facilities laid the groundwork for opening an air corridor from Israel directly into Iran once the next phase of the US engineered conflict is entered.

Most worrisome is the fact that known Al Qaeda terrorists now have chemical and possibly biological weapons under their control as a direct result of US support.  The threat this poses to America is massive.  Those responsible for allowing this have committed the gravest of dereliction in their responsibilities and duties to protect America.  This situation nearly guarantees that at least one of the belligerents in Syria will use a weapon of mass destruction and will provide the long sought pretext for US intervention and a greater war with Iran.  No matter who the weapons are used against, the result will be spun to support the “necessity for military action.”

For perspective, consider if a citizen actively aided terrorists in acquiring chemical weapons.  That person would not only be treated as a terrorist, but likely targeted and executed in a drone strike without due process.  However, when our political leaders acting in secret for dubious special interests commit the same traitorous acts, we are told that they are heroes and their aims are in our best interests.  It is time for the public to demand answers and accountability.  Please write your elected individuals, press, and collectively organize to put an end to this treasonous policy.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-rebels-attack-base-near-military-factories/

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/23/279711/syria-militants-use-chemical-weapons/

http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-plot-532/

By Guiles Hendrik

The “Fiscal Cliff” and Defense Spending Cuts: Long Overdue Accountability

Posted on by

Secretary of Defense

It is rare that I would offer support to anything Washington proposes, but in the specific case of automatic cuts to the Defense Department, I can’t agree more.  The rhetoric in Washington is that if we, as a nation, go over the fiscal cliff, the Department of Defense as we know it will cease to exist.  If by that one means an excessively obese black hole of wasteful spending, ineptness, and bureaucracy, then I hope they are correct.  What will not happen is that the defense of our nation in any way will be imperiled as the military-industrial-complex elites would like you to believe.  In fact, we actually stand to get better accountability and more security by significantly reigning in the Department’s bankroll.  Further, perhaps the government would be less likely to commit our nation to senseless and counterproductive wars of what looks more and more like imperial crusades of no national interest.  Certainly, it will mean some lifelong government workers will need to actually get a real job and some parasitic defense contractors will have to make cuts, but it will not mean the core mission and ability of our military to “defend” the United States is decreased.  I can speak expertly on this subject as a former defense contractor, consultant for military capability development, combat veteran, and most importantly, a tax-paying civilian.

First, let me point out that the Defense Department is so large the Defense Department doesn’t even know what all assets and organizations it possesses.  Further, it considers itself so complex and large that it resists accountability by claiming an audit would be impossible.  To that defense, I would point out a couple things.  You won’t miss what you don’t know you have.  When you finally start getting auditable accountability of your assets, then we may be getting somewhere.  At that point, tens of billions of dollars still could be cut from the defense budget.

Second, the Defense Department has enjoyed too many years of literal blank checks from Congress billed to our great great grandchildren to pay back.  This massive payout has not provided a positive return on investment.  The Department of Defense, our military, is by a mind boggling degree the most sophisticated and powerful military ever to inhabit Earth.  Still though, they have found it impossible to achieve decisive gains and a clear cut victory in any of the now seemingly random wars fought over the last decade leaving trillions of dollars in debt, hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, and the world in chaos.  Specifically, radical Islamists have taken over the Middle East, Al Qaeda has gone from an organization only a few inside the intelligence community had ever heard of to a worldwide and growing phenomenon, and our once free nation has been turned into a police state.  This is not what I consider a positive contribution to any nation, much less our own.

Third, expanding on the financial aspect of the military, the war in Afghanistan has now drug on over a decade.  There is no end in sight, no strategy, and not even a sense that we need win it.  In fact, it appears the strategy is to continue to simply stay there indefinitely with no military endstate at all.  However, that would not take into account the billions of dollars of direct and indirect stimulus money this perpetual war injects into the economy.  As awful is it is to palate, the war has served as a stimulus slush fund for the economy, paying no mind of course to unpayable debt, that is beyond Congressional scrutiny or condemnation.  In fact, no elected official dare cut money and be seen as “not supporting our troops!”  In fact, pulling the plug on this endless floodgate of money is the best thing Congress could do for national security, our troops, and our economy.

Fourth, the Cold War is over and the terrorist menace that has been quite literally “created” by the U.S. government is a far cry from any real threat.  To illustrate, I would just like to point out that the likes of Osama bin Laden have been on and off CIA payrolls for literally decades.  The very same people we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan were the ones we trained a decade before in Pakistan and the Balkans to fight the Soviets and the Serbs.  Moving forward, the “insurgents” we fought doggedly in Iraq were in part composed of our formerly trained freedom fighters come jihadist allies.  Then our evil extremist enemies became our “freedom fighter” allies in Libya supported by the whole of the U.S. military and NATO that then turned and killed our Ambassador.  These now “bad guys” have now become “good guys” again in Syria where our Special Forces and CIA are actively arming, training, equipping, and advising them in combat daily.  Once we off Assad and use them to clear out his air defense sites and weaken his military, we will use the excuse of something like chemical weapons (remind you of Iraq?), to invade, which will pave the way for a war with the Shia and Iran.  Once we try to put Iran back in a box and reestablish control over its oil and gas, the Sunni rebels we supported will once again become radical terrorists that will be used to justify more defense and intelligence spending, a greater police state (control and power), and more endless wars of imperial designs that benefit the few.  I hope at this point you are seeing the trend.  There is no real threat, just the one we create for political ends.  This perpetual need to create a boogieman and fear mongering to control the civilian population is a trick as old as history.  However, there is no place for it in any free Republic and must be stopped.

Fifth, and far from exhaustive or comprehensive, is the fact that the debt and deficit are critical elements of our nation’s national security.  We can no longer afford to borrow to infinity to finance wars.  Wars of imperialism broke the backs of the great European powers, particularly collapsing the British Empire, and it will no doubt do the same to America.  There is simply no need to have troops and bases in nearly every country in the world.  There is no need to borrow from China billions of dollars so we can arm to fight China.  It is insane!  Why are we borrowing from the Japanese, the Germans, and the Koreans to protect them more than fifty years after any real threat vanished?  They are independently world economic powerhouses more than capable of their own defense!  And to those that point to treaties, I say to the trashcan with them.  It is time to renegotiate them and or pull out!  It is absurd that soldiers today would be asked to fight and die for a poorly written treaty composed before most of their grandparents were born!  Going to war today over a treaty written after World War II is about as ridiculous as suggesting Vietnam was necessary because of a treaty written after the American Civil War.

Now that we have hit the wave tops about why the spending is unnecessary, one may ask why we haven’t cut the budget.  The answer is simple politics.  A contemporary example is the Navy’s aircraft carriers.  Aircraft carriers have for at least a decade or more been incredibly large, vulnerable, and extremely expensive floating liabilities.  Since the advent of more accurate anti-ship missiles and the proliferation of attack submarines, missile boats, and aircraft, the aircraft carrier is obsolete in the way the battleship was in World War II, most notably “after” the wake-up call on December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor.  Further, long range, precision stand-off weapons to include stealth drones, hypersonic missiles, and submarine launched cruise missiles have made the need to use forward deployed (and vulnerable) aircraft unnecessary in military strategy.  As such, the Navy has repeatedly asked Congress to reduce the “mandated” number of carriers from eleven down to as low as seven so that the money could be recapitalized into more capable and survivable platforms.  However, Congress refuses and actually has added more money to carrier shipbuilding projects.  The reason is jobs, which equal votes.  No congressman is going to kill a ship yard or carrier port in his or her district.  As such, the entire nation is stuck with billions of dollars of wasted money, a military with an obsolete and vulnerable platform, and thousands of lives being put at risk.  Another example is the case of Joint Forces Command or JFCOM.  JFCOM in simply terms was a great idea on paper that in reality failed miserably.  It never had the authority to do what it needed to do and in the end became another bureaucratic hurdle to getting anything done.  As such, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates cut JFCOM.  That was years ago and guess what, JFCOM is still employing people and operating even though it has no official mission thanks to powerful lobbyists and Virginia politicians more interested in protecting what really amounted to about a thousand contractors.  The cost to the U.S. taxpayer has been probably over a hundred million in wasted dollars.  The examples are nearly endless.  BRAC, an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, endless “studies” that lead to nothing, and innumerable mindless DoD funded commercials on the Armed Forces Network that tell you about things like how to lock a door and not walk with a cell phone top my short list!

The above real world examples outline the conundrum Congress faces in making “any” cuts to the Department of Defense.  As such, the Department has grown and grown like a beast with an insatiable appetite and Congress has been impotent to stop.  As such, the only way to get this under control will be mandatory cuts where everyone is to blame, but no one is to blame.  President Obama is keenly aware of this and honestly, has cunningly set up a political checkmate where he knows that no matter what the Congress does, he will get his cuts.  This is known as sequestration or the “fiscal cliff.”  Unfortunately, beyond the cuts to government spending, which are not enough, the cliff also comes with host of oppressive tax hikes that will utterly destroy private American wealth and further fuel Washington’s spending habits so the sum net gain will be a loss.

By Guiles Hendrik

Iran’s IRGC claims it has captured another U.S. Drone

Posted on by

 

Picture on Iranian television of what Iran claims is a captured U.S. spy drone

Iranian news has been reporting that it has captured another U.S. drone invading its airspace.  Television reports on December 4, 2012 indeed appear to show a Boeing Scan Eagle Drone.  At this time there is no way to independently verify Iran’s claims and the U.S. Navy is still stating all of its drones are accounted for.  If in fact it is a U.S. drone as Iran claims, this again demonstrates the provocative actions the U.S. military continues to persecute in the Persian Gulf region against Iran.

Respective of Iran’s claims, it is totally plausible that they indeed captured a Scan Eagle, but the actual value more likely is in its propaganda rather than intelligence value.  For starters, it is clear Iran has already intercepted more sophisticated drones such as Predators and or Reapers, and at least one RQ-170 Sentinel drone.  The Sentinel is one of our most sensitive and secretive “stealth” reconnaissance and surveillance drones.  In comparison to the Sentinel, the Scan Eagle would have to be considered a model airplane for hobbyists.  It is smaller, far less sophisticated, relatively inexpensive, not stealth, and not intended for extreme endurance missions over long distances.  Instead, it is small to medium-sized drone used to gather tactical level information from the battlefield.

Respective of damage control due to its loss, it is probably minimal on the intelligence front.  Iran already knows the U.S. is spying on it.  Second, it is a commercially developed drone originally designed to help fisherman locate fish so is not of a classified construction.  Third, although it’s cameras just received an upgrade that may be of interest to the Iranians, they are a far cry from the highly sophisticated and classified sensor payload the captured Sentinel carried.  Finally, if there is any intelligence value at all to the capture, it would be if the Scan Eagle was carrying additional undisclosed classified sensors designed to collect on Iran’s nuclear program.  That would be of interest and highly valuable.

In typical fashion, the U.S. Navy is stating it has accounted for all of its drones.  “Accounted for” doesn’t mean that they “have” all of their drones.  In fact, lost aircraft can be “accounted” for if they know they went down and where.  Further, the denial is only from the U.S. Navy.  This says nothing about the greater U.S. military and intelligence community operating in the region.  In fact, the USS Ponce, a special operations platform and the Mark V Special Operations Craft used by SEALs are known to launch them from their decks.  As such, it is entirely plausible the craft was flown by SOCOM and the Navy is simply playing a game of semantics.

The impact of this on U.S-Iran relations is minimal and will simply be used as a propaganda victory for Iran.  The IRGC will claim this demonstrates the great prowess of the Iranian military, but again, for those in the know that is joke.  As a comparison, it would be like shooting down a kid’s model airplane and then declaring military dominance of the world.  It’s pure unadulterated propaganda.

What isn’t propaganda is the fact the U.S. continues to invade sovereign Iranian territory at will.  Had China or Iran attempted to fly reconnaissance and attack aircraft over highly sensitive nuclear or military facilities, the U.S. military would have intercepted the aircraft and shot them down if they refused to turn back.  Had the Iranians done the exact same thing, which is a justifiable in defense of their nation, Western media and politicians would be quick to spin it into an act of war by the Iranians.  The reality is the Washington needs to get out of the business of creating boogie men to continue to fuel fear to feed the military-industrial-complex.  Even for those that disagree, the truth is that the U.S. has neither the will nor the resources to spare on another drawn out imperialist war without end.  As such, military escalation in the region is of no benefit to U.S. national security.  It’s time to consolidate and simply leave Iran’s neighbors to deal with Iran.  It just isn’t our fight and our interests are not served by provoking one.

 

Related articles:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/04/276164/drone-capture-proves-us-weakness/

http://www.businessinsider.com/scaneagle-drone-possibly-captured-by-iran-2012-12

By Guiles Hendrik

Israeli Battle Plan for Gaza and the Strategic Implications for the Region

Posted on by

As news of the continued fighting between Hamas and Israel headline media around the world, we sit on the eve of another ground invasion of Gaza.  If bombs and rockets continue to rain down on both sides, we can expect to see a full Israeli assault within the next 48 hours.  In the run up to H-Hour, Israel is rapidly calling up, briefing, and deploying the full spectrum of its defense forces.  This includes air, ground, and naval forces.  Once in place, the Israelis will move to permanently cut Gaza’s border with Egypt and then make focused thrusts inside of heavily populated districts to eliminate weapons caches and domestic rocket production capabilities.  The initial Israeli military thrust that cuts the border between Gaza and Egypt will be an extremely delicate operation.  The potential for provoking Egypt and unintended border spillover of the fighting could have drastic consequences to include destroying the Camp David Accords.  Further, unlike Cast Lead, Israel’s previous operation into Gaza, there is a high probability that Israeli forces may be again forced to occupy significant sectors of Gaza to maintain security.  This will come at a high cost and a large dedication of manpower and assets Israel would prefer not to have to commit.

To conduct this type operation, the Israeli Defense Forces will likely suffer a greater number of casualties than during previous operations due to the densely populated, complex urban terrain found inside Gaza and the improved weapons and tactics of Hamas.  Closely correlated with the higher Israeli casualties will be an even higher number of Palestinian lives lost in retaliation.  This is horrible for both sides, but greater issues are at stake.  Specifically, there is a high likelihood that Hamas militants will attempt to coordinate cross-border attacks on Israel from Egypt.  By employing this tactic, the hope of Hamas militants will be to provoke an Israeli military strike inside of Egypt.  This will then be immediately used as propaganda to force Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s hand.  Arguably, Morsi, a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood, which is affiliated with Hamas, wants to look strong as a peacemaker, but not as a military threat to Israel.  By Israel attacking Egypt, it will put immense pressure on Morsi to act against Israel and even more pressure on the international community to force Israel toward a ceasefire.

Iran is widely seen as the puppet master in the latest Middle East violence.  Sucking Israel into another military conflict with Gaza plays directly to Iran’s strategic interests.  Without doubt, Iran’s ally, Syrian President Assad, needs both the international and regional pressure taken off of him as he continues to battle Sunni extremists within his border.  As of now, many of the Sunni-Arab nations such as Qatar are actively supporting the rebel fighters and the international community is solidifying its opposition and demands for Assad’s removal.  Iran recognizes that if Assad falls, they will lose a strategic regional ally and be significantly reduced in their ability to maintain Hezbollah as a fifth column against Israel.  Further, and perhaps more important, if Syria falls, Iran knows that it will be targeted next.  The combination of a safe air corridor and the inability to support Hezbollah post-collapse of Assad are exactly the pre-conditions Israel needs on its border before striking Iran.  Israel in coordination with the United States has covertly worked toward this goal for years and Iran is desperate to regionally counter it.  As such, the more regional chaos Iran can cause for Israel, the more Israel is bogged down within its own borders and unable to commit the military assets to attacking Iran.  As a best case for Iran, Iran realizes that if Israel retaliates harshly against Hamas, it could force Sunni-Arab nations that are currently acting against Iran into a mutually supporting alliance of convenience against Israel.  We already see this with the ethnically split, but Shia dominated Iraq government calling for the use of oil as a weapon against the U.S. and Israel, and Egypt threatening support to Hamas and to pull out of the Camp David Accords.  This is just the strategic redirection Iran and Syria are seeking to achieve.  Dangerously though, this is a serious game of brinkmanship that has the potential to rapidly spiral out of control and pull the entire region into war.

Considering the intricate nature of the events unfolding by the minute, U.S. policy must maintain the utmost discretion and delicacy moving forward.  For now, the U.S. must focus on ensuring Egypt and Israel do not break from the agreements forged at Camp David and exercise the utmost restraint.  By backing Morsi as a peacemaker, the U.S. could solidify his standing as a man that brings peace and stability, not war to the region.  However, ill-thought out moves that stigmatize or corner Morsi as failing to support the Palestinians against Israel will backfire and force him to take an even harder line toward Israel causing further regional destabilization.  Respective of Syria, Israel has shown itself measured in its response and must continue to maintain a defensive posture with Syrian harassing fires intended also to suck Israel into a greater conflict.  At no point should the U.S. actively enter this conflict or be seen as picking sides.  All considered, the most positive outcome for the U.S. would be a brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but for now, all indications point to greater war.

By Guiles Hendrik