See: US Military Industrial….
Eisenhower's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex today: Militarized Security-Pentagon I: foreign (the War Department)-Pentagon II: domestic (Dept. of Homeland Security)-Corporations (military contractors)-Congress-White House-Mainstream (Corporate) Media-Empire-Militarized Civilians.
MILITARY-CORPORATE-CONGRESSIONAL-WHITE HOUSE-CORPORATE MEDIA COMPLEX NEWSLETTER #1, APRIL 7, 2012. Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace.
This first OMNI newsletter on what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) reminds us that most of OMNI’s topical newsletters bring searchlights and microscopes to the understanding of US
Here is the link to all OMNI newsletters: http://www.omnicenter.org/newsletter-archive/ For a knowledge-based peace, justice, and ecology movement and an informed citizenry as the foundation for change.
Contents
Swanson’s Book
Turse’s Book
Ike’s Prophecy Came True
Militarism USA
Military Contractors
Conversion (2 articles)
Sullivan on Seymour
Feldman, from Military Keynesianism to a Green Economy
NEW BOOKS
David Swanson. The Military Industrial Complex at 50.
“New Book Surveys State of the Military Industrial Complex”
Published on MLK Day 2012, a new
book called The Military Industrial
Complex at 50 is the most comprehensive
collection on the subject available.
Edited by activist David Swanson, the
book explains what the military industrial
complex (MIC ) is, where it comes
from, what damage it does, what further
destruction it threatens, and what can
be done and is being done to chart a
different course.
Authors (from within and without
the MIC ) contributing chapters to this
collection include: Ellen Brown • Paul
Chappell • Helena C obban • Ben Davis
• Jeff F ogel • Bunny Greenhouse • Bruce
Gagnon • C lare Hanrahan • John Heuer
• Steve Horn • R obert Jensen • K aren
Kwiatkowski • Judith Le Blanc • Bruce
Levine • R ay McGovern • Wally Myers
• R obert Naiman • Gareth Porter • C hris
Rodda • Allen R uff • Mia Austin Scoggins
• T ony R ussell • Lisa Savage • Mary
Beth Sullivan • C oleman Smith • Dave
Shreve • David Swanson • Pat Elder •
Jonathan Williams • Ann Wright.
The book will be available at MIC 50.
org in paperback, bulk discount, audio,
PDF, kindle, Epub, and iPad/iPhone.
The MIC , this book expertly argues,
kills large numbers of people, endangers
us, hollows out our economy, transfers
our wealth to a tiny elite, devastates the
natural environment, and threatens civil
liberties, the rule of law, and representative
government.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
found the nerve in his farewell speech
in 1961 to articulate one of the most
prescient, potentially valuable, and
tragically as yet unheeded warnings of
human history:
“In the councils of government, we
must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought
or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. T he potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist.
“We must never let the weight of this
combination endanger our liberties or
democratic processes. We should take
nothing for granted. Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the
proper meshing of the huge industrial
and military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals, so
that security and liberty may prosper
together.”
This collection shows that the “total
influence” of the MIC has increased, the
disastrous rise of misplaced power is
no longer merely a potential event, our
liberties and democratic processes are in
a state of collapse, and that Ike himself
disastrously misinformed the citizenry
when he claimed that the very monster
he warned of had been “compelled” by
the need for “defense.”
The book can be ordered at http://MIC 50.org
The Complex by Nick Turse
Review by Victoria Segal, The Guardian, Friday 26 June 2009
Conspiracy theorists still hung up on the military-industrial complex need to update their cold war-era vocabulary: according to national security writer Nick Turse, the war machine's ever-extending reach now stretches beyond petroleum and telecoms to include a "military-doughnut complex" where confectionery chains supply soldiers with glazed buns. In this acronym-heavy book, Turse describes a range of "microcomplexes" connecting the “Eisenhower's Worst Fears Came True” By Simon Jenkins, Guardian UK
Eisenhower's worst fears came true. We invent enemies to buy the bombs. Britain faces no serious threat, yet keeps waging war. While big defence exists, glory-hungry politicians will use it.
Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice. The outgoing US defence secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe 's "failure of political will" in not maintaining defence spending. He said NATO had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those willing to wage war and those "who specialise in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks." Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them.
This call was echoed by NATO's chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US Libya by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe 's governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defence to him is measured not in security but in spending.
The call was repeated back home by the navy chief, Sir Mark Stanhope. He had to be "dressed down" by the prime minister, David Cameron, for warning that an extended war in Libya
Victory will come, but only if politicians spend more money on "a surge." Soldiers are like firefighters, demanding extra to fight fires. They will fight all right, but if you want victory that is overtime.
On Wednesday the Russian ambassador to NATO warned that Britain and France were "being dragged more and more into the eventuality of a land-based operation in Libya Russia watched the same process in Afghanistan Afghanistan Libya Libya
It is not democracy that keeps western nations at war, but armies and the interests now massed behind them. The greatest speech about modern defence was made in 1961 by the US America
I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented."
The devil makes work for idle hands, especially if they are well financed. Britain 's former special envoy to Kabul , Sherard Cowper-Coles, echoed Kennan last week in claiming that the army's keenness to fight in Helmand was self-interested. "It's use them or lose them, Sherard," he was told by the then chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt. Cowper-Coles has now gone off to work for an arms manufacturer.
There is no strategic defence justification for the US spending 5.5% of its gross domestic product on defence or Britain
These figures merely formalise existing commitments and interests. At the end of the cold war soldiers assiduously invented new conflicts for themselves and their suppliers, variously wars on terror, drugs, piracy, internet espionage and man's general inhumanity to man. None yields victory, but all need equipment. The war on terror fulfilled all Eisenhower's fears, as America
The belligerent posture of the US and Britain Pakistan Tripoli destroys not just a Gaddafi bunker (are there any left?), but a hospital ward and a classroom in Britain
As long as "big defence" exists it will entice glory-hungry politicians to use it. It is a return to the hundred years war, when militaristic barons and knights had a stranglehold on the monarch, and no other purpose in life than to fight. To deliver victory they demanded ever more taxes for weapons, and when they had ever more weapons they promised ever grander victories. This is exactly how Britain
There is one piece of good news. NATO has long outlived its purpose, now justifying its existence only by how much it induces its members to spend, and how many wars irrelevant to its purpose it finds to fight. Yet still it does not spend enough for the US America
MILITARISM USA
www.vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick Viewby VP Center - 2011 - Related articles
Taxpayers Subsidize the Gun Industry. 38. The Result: Militarized Firearms Define theU.S.
Taxpayers Subsidize the Gun Industry. 38. The Result: Militarized Firearms Define the
www.alternet.org/.../why_do_the_police_have_tanks_the_strange_an...Cached
Jul 5, 2011 – According to an investigation carried out by the Huffington Post's Radley Balko, " America
The Militarization of America: How the Military Mindset Is ...The Militarization of Civilian Life: Mission Creep
The idea "drew the wrath of civilian agencies from the Drug Enforcement ... The one place where the modern American military has been successful is right here ...
www.tomdispatch.com/.../tomgram:_william_astore,_american_milita...Cached
Jun 14, 2011 – In a special lecture to Air Force Academy cadets in 1999 on “the erosion of civilian control of the military in the United States
www.allenonline.com › ... › Speak Your Mind › National TopicsCached
3 posts - 3 authors - Last post: Sep 12
Militarized civilian police. Which country is it that has street protests better received than America
thejaghunter.wordpress.com/.../treason-in-america-martial-law-militar...Cached
Apr 26, 2011 – TREASON in America
crs.sagepub.com/content/30/2/451.full.pdf
by J Orr - 2004 - Cited by 16 - Related articles
(Department of Sociology,Syracuse University U.S.
(Department of Sociology,
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peace/War_Immemorial.htmlCached
May 26, 2008 – For example, the U.S. government reports 432 U.S. military dead in Afghanistan
within the United States
issat.dcaf.ch/.../Militarized-versus-Civilian-Policing-Problems-of-Ref...Cached
This meant a change of paradigm from a civilian-based police reform to a military -based police reform. Militarization was accelerated by the US
Jan 15, 2010 – In contrast to rescue and relief teams dispatched by various civilian organizations , the humanitarian mandate of the US
GOOGLE FOR MOREMILITARY CONTRACTORS
“Blackwater Shouldn't Lobby WIth Our Dime”
Why we need to rein in government contractors that use taxpayer money for political advantage.
The President should issue the executive order immediately. And he should go even further - banning all political activity by companies receiving more than half their revenues from the US
Lockheed Martin, the nation's largest contractor, has already got more than $19 billion in federal contracts so far this year. But we know very little about Lockheed Martin's political spending other than its Political Action Committee contributions. We don't know how much money it gives to the Aerospace Industries Association to lobby for a bigger defense budget.
We don't even know how much Lockheed is giving the US Chamber of Commerce to lobby against Obama's proposed executive order requiring disclosure of its political activities.
Don't we have a right to know? After all, you and I and other taxpayers are Lockheed's biggest customer. As such, we're financing some of its lobbying and political activities.
Lockheed's lobbying and political activities are built into its cost structure. So when Lockheed contracts with the federal government for a piece of military equipment, you and I end up paying for a portion of its political costs.
It's one of the most insidious conflicts of interest in American politics.
Now, in the wake of the grotesque Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, there's no limit on what Lockheed can spend on politics.
That's why the President should go the next step and ban Lockheed and all other government contractors that get more than half their revenues from government from engaging in any political activities at all.
Otherwise, you and I and other taxpayers indirectly pay for Lockheed and Northrop Grumman to lobby for a larger military budget and support politicians who will vote for it.
We indirectly pay for Blackwater to lobby for - and support politicians who will demand - more use of contract workers in Iraq and Afghanistan
We indirectly pay for Raytheon and General Dynamics to lobby for, and support politicians who will push for, more high-tech weapons systems.
And so on.
Disclosure is a start. But in this post-Citizens United world, it's only a beginning of what's needed.
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley
TWO ARTICLES ON ECONOMIC CONVERSION
“Moving from a War to a Peace Economy” (on Seymour
By Mary Beth Sullivan Space Alert! 9 Winter 2012
Behind every question about how to
get the US
lives of average Americans (the so-called
99 percent) lies the necessity for economic
conversion—that is, planning, designing,
and implementing a transformation
from a war economy to a peace economy.
Historically, this is an effort that would
include a changeover from military to
civilian work in industrial facilities, in
laboratories, and at US
To that end, I am compelled to share
what I ’ve learned from reading Seymour
Melman, the most prolific writer on the
topic.
Melman was a professor emeritus of
industrial engineering at C olumbia University.
He joined the C olumbia faculty
in 1949 and, by all reports, was a popular
instructor for over five decades until he
retired from teaching in 2003. (He died a
year later.)
Melman was also an active member
of the peace movement. He was the
co-chair of the C ommittee for a Sane
Nuclear Policy (SANE), and the creator
and chair of the National C ommission for
Economic C onversion and Disarmament.
It is reported that Melman was under
surveillance by the F BI for much of his
career because of his work criticizing the
military-industrial complex—a sure sign
that there must be something worth hearing
in his work.
The economic conversion movement
in past decades played a valuable role in
bringing together the peace movement
and union leadership to do the heady
work of imaging how this country could
sustain industrial jobs when, as it was
envisioned, the US
of the weapons of the C old War. I t
is a history that should not be forgotten.
In one of Melman’s last articles, published
in the political newsletter C ounterpunch
in March of 2003, his frustration
was palpable. He noted that New York
City put out a request for a proposal to
spend between $3 and $4 billion to replace
subway cars. Not a single US
bid on the proposal—in part because the
nation no longer had the tools it needed
to build its subway trains. I n the article,
titled “In the Grip of a Permanent War
Economy,” Melman calculated that if
this manufacturing work were done in
the US, it would have generated, directly
and indirectly, about 32,000 jobs. “The
production facilities and labor force that
could deliver six new subway cars each
week could produce 300 cars per year,
and thereby provide new replacement
cars for the New York
a twenty-year cycle,” Melman wrote, noting
that such an endeavor would depend
on well-trained engineers but that “it is
almost twenty-five years since the last
book was published in the US
public transportation].”
Three principal functions would be
served by economic conversion: F irst, the
planning stage would offer assurance to
the working people of the war economy
that they could have an economic future
in a society where war-making was a
diminished institution. Second, reversing
the process of economic decay in the US
economy, particularly in manufacturing,
the national commission would be empowered
to facilitate planning for capital
investments in all aspects of infrastructure
by governments of cities, counties,
states, and the federal government, which
would comprise a massive program of
new jobs and new markets. (Melman
frequently referred to the annual “report
card” published by the American Society
of C ivil Engineers to highlight the declining
roads, bridges, schools, and so on—a
situation that continues to worsen.) And
third, the national network of alternativeuse
committees would constitute a gain in
decision-making power by all the working
people involved.
It behooves the peace movement to
create a vision that the populace can get
excited about—a vision that will capture
people’s imagination. A vision that sees
the skills and talents of our engineers and
scientists creating the renewable energy
infrastructure critical to surviving the
twenty-first century; a vision that engages
peace activists, environmentalists, labor,
students, artists, and food security folks
in creating plans for how we will warm,
Laurie Kirby (Woodstock , N.Y. ) and Dave Webb (Leeds , England ) march through Bath
annual conference held in Portland
feed, and transport people in the year
2040. T his is the true security need for the
US, and the world.
The vision is clear, it is obvious, and it
is mainstream. An important next step
for us is to determine what we can do
in our home communities to empower
local unions and workers, environmentalists,
healthcare workers, social workers,
secular and spiritual leaders alike, and
the neighbors next door to engage—to
look around, determine the needs, create
the collaborations, and wrestle the
funds away to start building a survivable
future.
This was printed in part from a larger
article that ran in the Jan/Feb 2012 edition
of The Humanist: A Magazine of C ritical
I nquiry and Social C oncern. Mary Beth Sullivan is a social worker and Global
Network member who lives in Bath , Maine
FROM MILITARY KEYNESIANISM AND A GREEN NEW DEAL
“Conversion of MIC Requires New Coalitions” By Jonathan Feldman
Space Alert! WInter 2012
In a panel discussion at New York University
December, I mmanuel Wallerstein, Michael Mann,
Craig C alhoun and other noted speakers addressed
the question, “Does C apitalism Have a F uture?”
There wasn’t a consensus on the panel. At one extreme,
Wallerstein described a capitalist system unable
to sustain itself because of underconsumption
and a growing international labor force of competing
workers. I n contrast, Michael Mann suggested that
a K eynesian reflation attached to green jobs might
sustain the capitalist economy through a Schumpeterian
boom.
Mann’s arguments seem plausible, leaving open
alternatives to a kind of deterministic zero-hope
agenda for the future. Yet, many states underinvest
in green markets and products. Moreover, the
green jobs argument has taken a lot of hits lately. I n
recently locked out its workers making locomotives,
perhaps as part of an effort to shift production to
another rail plant in the US Detroit , Michigan
a plan that would have expanded the market for
green products through establishment of a new light
rail line was scuttled by the C ity of Detroit
US Department of T ransportation. T he two parties
supported using buses instead, but this decision
(if permanent) shrinks the market for Oregon
Works, a new US
business. Detroit
authority to an outside manager, given the city’s
serious fiscal difficulties. I t becomes hard to talk
about green job reflation when some cities in the
US, like national governments in Europe , are apparently
running out of money.
A Green New Deal offers an opportunity to expand
locally-based manufacturing; manufacturing growth
is necessary to promote the tax base that funds mass
transit. Mass transit is a key bridge to reindustrialization
because the state procures the product and
helps create the market. T ax dollars can be recycled
to support domestic employment if rail products
are made locally. Yet, if the state can’t afford to buy
green products like trains, the would-be virtuous
circles become a dead end. Protectionism in the US
saves assembly jobs at the lower end of the economic
food chain, but can’t by itself generate high-end
engineering and design jobs that could form the
nucleus of new industries as transit makers diversify
into related products and markets. K eynesianism
becomes just wishful thinking unless we explain
how a political process could be launched to realize
needed investments.
Marxian determinism and K eynesian voluntarism
do not immediately address the question of social,
political and economic design. I n other words, how
do people become freer by extending their choices
through economic reconstruction of institutions?
At a micro level, cooperatives and alternative
banking systems become means for recycling the
consumptive power of individuals and triggering
alternatives to transnational companies and banks
that sit on cash and fail to organize work at home.
The guild socialist, G. D. H. C ole recognized the
power of consumption as a key means of triggering
and implementing an alternative economic architecture.
I n other words, green banks and alternative
financial institutions patronized by citizens at large
could finance new and emerging networks of green
producers and suppliers.
This patronage system itself can be tied to the
dynamic new social movements like UK Uncut or
Occupy Wall Street. I n fact, activists in Occupy Wall
Street have supported a new US-campaign, “Move
Your Money,” in which millions of dollars have been
moved out of established banks into alternative, community
or smaller scale banks. Political capital was
transferred into economic capital and potentially a
funding base for green reflation. Similarly, political
action to cut military budgets can create such new
green investment funds. I n September, the Obama
Administration announced a jobs creation plan worth
$450 billion. I n December, the Administration proposed
future military budget cuts in an equivalent amount. C onversion of defense firms could bridge these two proposals by making such firms green
wealth generators. Expanding an alternative economics from below,
requires the creation of new coalitions. A new kind of
dialogue is needed where environmental, labor, peace
and social economy constituencies come together and
exchange ideas. Only by bridging the intellectual
divide can we overcome both economic determinism
and voluntarism.
— Jonathan Michael Feldman is an Associate Professor
in the Department of Economic History at Stockholm
University. He is presently organizing a Global Teach-In
on these themes (www.globalteachin.com).
END SECURITYCORPORATEPENTAGONWHITEHOUSECONGRESSMAINSTREAMMEDIASURVEILLANCE COMPLEX NEWSLETTER #1
--
Dick Bennett
My blog:
It's the War Department
My blog:
It's the War Department
Newsletters
No comments:
Post a Comment