Military-Industrial Spending v. Media and Congressional Myopia

With the direct costs of the Iraq War set to run over $800 billion in 2009----$3.5 billion a week/ $180 billion a year----Tomdispatch and Chalmers Johnson remind us that while singularly focusing on a $700 billion Wall Street bailout, the derelict mainstream media, with silent knee-jerk complicity, have allowed an absurdly enormous and wasteful military budget to pass through Congress with nary a word (Really? For 2009, a $612 billion defense authorization bill plus guaranteed additional discretionary appropriations and no serious mention?). THAT'S A WHOPPING $100 BILLION DIFFERENCE from the bailout! And yet, there's no outrage over the indirect (or true) costs of our voluntary, 21st Century "splendid little war" either, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be $1-2 trillion. More inclusive estimates accounting for the many costly externalities associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq measure it closer to $4-$5 trillion (Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes). To put these gargantuan numbers in context:

Stiglitz and Bilmes list what even one of these trillions could have paid for: 8 million housing units, or 15 million public school teachers, or health care for 530 million children for a year, or scholarships to university for 43 million students. Three trillion could have fixed America's social security problem for half a century.

So doing the math: Divide one Iraq War of $1-5 trillion by Wall Street bailouts at $700 billion a pop, and, "we're talking somewhere between one-and-a-half and seven bailouts-worth of taxpayer dollars flowing into the morass of disaster, corruption, and carnage in Iraq."*

Moreover, one of the worst parts about the incomprehensibly bloated defense budget according to Winslow Wheeler, a Republican, who for 31 years was a member of the Senate and the General Accounting Office on military expenditures:

America's defense budget is now larger in inflation-adjusted dollars than at any point since the end of World War II, and yet our Army has fewer combat brigades than at any point in that period; our Navy has fewer combat ships; and the Air Force has fewer combat aircraft. Our major equipment inventories for these major forces are older on average than any point since 1946 ---or in some cases, in our entire history.

Interestingly, notwithstanding these quantity/quality issues and the absence of an existential threat of Soviet Cold War Era magnitude, the U.S. Government (no surprise there) and mainstream media apparently feel these expenditures justified without serious mention: Even in the midst, as we are told, of an imminent, catastrophic financial disaster!

But here we can see these two related events loosely linked as The Daily Show brilliantly draws a parallel between the dire language used to sell the Iraq Invasion and the currently proposed corporate-statist (or is it a "corporate-socialist"?) bailout:



In spite of all this gloomy foreboding, and inspirited by that exceptionally-American Divine Light of Freedom, Nature's god-given, democratically dubious and ineffectual right to defer to----"The Experts!"----I now faithfully invoke those who just some 5-6 years ago, had it in mind to save our collective asses from something big. No really----big like the specter of Iraq! If the past be any indication of the future, then their ironically sanguine divinations in contrast with today's apocalyptic economic forecasts may give us a sense of the collective pool of wisdom in which today's heroic catastrophists may be diving (Or it might just simply provide us with a chuckle). Here are just a few examples from The Institute of Expertology's second compendium, Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won The War In Iraq, a resource that everyone should have by their bedside (or toilet at least):

• I believe...that the Iraqi people will, in fact, greet us as liberators.---Senator John McCain, NBC News Today, March 20, 2003
  

• This conflict is going to be…relatively short.---Senator McCain, interview on Meet the Press, March 23, 2003
  

• The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small...Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits.---Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, September 16, 2002
  

• It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars.---Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, September 2002
  

• This is $1.7 billion...in terms of the American taxpayers' contribution...We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.---Andrew Natsios, appointed by the Bush Administration to run USAID, on Ted Koppel's Nightline, April 23, 2003

• The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.---Mitch Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, April 21, 2003
  

To be undoubtedly continued...

*With regard to the corruption mentioned above, here's one component of it:

• $19.3bn---The amount Halliburton has received in single-source contracts for work in Iraq.
  
  

...And also these other disconcerting facts:

• $138---The amount paid by every US household every month towards the current operating costs of the war.
  


• $25bn---The annual cost to the US of the rising price of oil, itself a consequence of the war.
  


• $3 trillion---A conservative estimate of the true cost - to America alone - of Bush's Iraq adventure. The rest of the world, including Britain, will shoulder about the same amount again.
  


• $5bn---Cost of 10 days' fighting in Iraq.
  


• $1 trillion---The interest America will have paid by 2017 on the money borrowed to finance the war.
  


• 3%---The average drop in income of 13 African countries - a direct result of the rise in oil prices. This drop has more than offset the recent increase in foreign aid to Africa.
  
  

(All statistics quoted from Ada Edemariam, "The True Cost of War," http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan)

The Hand of the People, Enemies of the State

"The legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802

"We expect every American to support our military, and if they can't do that, to shut up. Americans, and indeed our allies, who actively work against our military once the war is underway will be considered enemies of the state by me." Bill O'Reilly, February 26, 2003

"The hand of the people... has proved that government to be the strongest of which every man feels himself a part." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Tiffin, 1807.

After closely following the protest scene outside of the Democratic Convention, where police in riot gear even threatened with tear gas a peaceful demonstration by Iraq Veterans Against the War, one might reluctantly apprehend that, for all intents and purposes, the First Amendment is either functionally suspended, in limbo, at rest, or just plain dead. Yet, the Democratic Convention was strikingly subdued in comparison to St. Paul last week.

The response at the Republican Convention exemplified an antithesis to any meaningful public exercise of 66% of the personal protections guaranteed under the First Amendment (Those not pertaining to religion). Police employed an indiscriminate use of force and crowd control that utilized riot control tactics and weapons in non-riot situations. Pepper spray, smoke bombs, impact rounds, and tear gas grenades were used not just against those practicing civil disobedience, but against innocent bystanders, and journalists as well. In fact, out of 800 arrests there were 18 felony riot charges, and 19 journalists rounded up for simply documenting the horrific scene. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now was arrested for asking why two of her producers were jailed, one of whom filmed her own assault.

In addition, so called "preventative" measures were taken to raid homes and the "convergence spaces" of organizers and video documentarians. At least one of these raids by the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office took place in Minneapolis, which is outside of their jurisdiction. One, according to Jeff Guntzel of the Minnesota Independent on Glen Greenwald's webcast, took place over the weekend without the Chief of Police in the operation even reading the search warrant. Guntzel also witnessed at the home of organizers working with Food Not Bombs (video here) the intrusion of police wielding fully automatic weapons, and "escorting" a 5 year-old boy out of the house. He also documented other first-hand accounts and provided photographs.

What was the probable cause? What evidence did they find against them? Will anyone be charged with anything that sticks (A lot of people have been charged with the Orwellian "conspiracy to cause riot")? If the answers are truly "nothing" and "no"----no matter: Their tactics and strategies undergird a much broader goal, one that clearly suggests democratic suppression and intimidation, which will be a focus in future blogs.

Lest one still think police only swooped in on potential troublemakers and pesky anarchists, note that the I-Witness Video Collective, which was formed to document potential police abuse at these types of events, was pre-emptively raided after first being surrounded by heavily armed police threatening detention for any attempting to leave their working space. They bizarrely claimed there was a hostage situation inside, though if that were the case, they wouldn't need a warrant to enter (At the time, the police were awaiting a warrant; and then got one for the wrong address). The group, which has allied with the New York City Chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild in the past, was likely targeted in coordination with federal authorities because of their role in the '04 New York Convention ("California's Anti-Terrorism Information Center admitted to spying on anti-war groups in 2003. And Denver's police department built their own secret spy files on Quakers and 200 other organizations"---Wired Blog Network) And they weren't the only group of videographers targeted. The Glass Bead Collective was suspiciously arrested in what seems to be an intelligence operation that seized political literature, lists of members, and future documentary plans (video here).

Are These Just Random Abuses?

Since the passage of the PATRIOT ACT and the recommendation of 9/11 Commission for greater cooperation and intelligence sharing between agencies both local and federal, "Fusion Centers" have been set up and improperly used for domestic spying (begin here, here, and here). And since I-Witness footage was pivotal in some 400 cases that resulted in dropped charges or acquittals against demonstrators four years ago, it appears, quite suspiciously, that they were targeted in a politically motivated episode of "intelligence sharing" that resulted in a raid. As Eileen Clancy on Democracy Now explains the police conduct in '04:

the police had lied so thoroughly and so often that if you were able to take the police statements, the police affidavits of the charges, and put them up against the video, that many times...the cases completely fell apart.

Ok: So since the '04 RNC debacle, they've learned to obstruct citizens' ability to monitor police activities in public so that "policing" with impunity could become easier. Obviously, they don't quite appreciate the art of open surveillance when practiced by public advocacy groups. Maybe they wish to be behind the camera?

Interestingly, according to Democracy Now , local police forces are increasingly conducting surveillance of their own:

Last Thursday, The New York Times published an article revealing that it had obtained videotapes showing the New York Police Department conducting surveillance by planting undercover officers to secretly infiltrate and monitor anti-war protests, bike rallies, and even a vigil for a dead cyclist. The footage the Times obtained showed officers holding protest signs, carrying flowers with mourners, riding their bicycles—and videotaping people at events.

Not surprisingly, other departments have been caught crossing jurisdictions, like the Philadelphia Police who were conducting surveillance at a New York May Day rally:

Philadelphia Police conducted a cloak-and-dagger surveillance of demonstrators at a May Day rally in New York, possibly violating a 1985 consent decree designed to protect people’s privacy. At the May 1st rally, undercover Philadelphia police snapped photographs of about twenty demonstrators dressed in black and covering their mouths with bandanas, the same outfits protesters wore in the rally at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. According to the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, John Timoney, who comes from the New York Police Department, it was part of Philadelphia police strategy to identify troublemakers who have said they plan to attend the Republican National Convention.

"Fusion Centers" linking federally gathered domestic intelligence to local police forces, and local police forces surveilling citizens outside of their jurisdiction? Should we doubt that police were/are executing a political agenda, at least in some respect? Maybe it would be wise to heed the warning of the Church Committee's 1976 report on the FBI's COINTELPRO spying program:

Unless new and tighter controls are established by legislation, domestic intelligence activities threaten to undermine our democratic society and fundamentally alter its nature.

That may be good for Bill O'Reilly, but it's bad for "the legitimate powers of government" and the "hand of the people."

Syllogism of the Day:

by: Mike Van Winkle California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC)

You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that (protest). You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act.

Rules of the game to keep in mind: Premise A should provide the predicate in the conclusion; B the subject; and those damn middles being too integral to understanding should stay excluded.

Premise A. Where a protest group protests The War on Terror might be where an act of terrorism occurs.*

Premise B. A protest group protesting TWOT is [almost] a terrorist act.**

THEREFORE

The Conclusion: A protest group protesting TWOT might be where [an act of] terrorism occurs?

OR: [One can almost argue that] A protest group protesting TWOT might be where [an act of] terrorism occurs?

OR the "easy," lazily deductive: One can almost argue that a protest against TWOT is a terrorist act?**

Thinking Out Loud
I really wish I could understand; this "logic" is the pits. Is it for Mr. Van Winkle that an event where a terrorist act might possibly occur is conflated into a peoples' participation in an actual terrorist activity simply because these people are philosophically against the s0-called "War on Terrorism's" methods and techniques for fighting both actual and perceived terrorism, if not the phraseology itself? "If you're against what we call the War on Terrorism, and actively express it in any way, then you must be a terrorist." Deductively dangerous thinking, and a war on the interpretation of words.

*Henceforth, it'll take the acronym, TWOT

**Surely, he'd argue it was a terrorist act if he truly thought it was one, right? So why does he qualify with "almost"? What kind of scruples hold him back. Perhaps it's that vestige, the last remaining bulwark of society's most civil laws and decency still obstinately rooted in his latent understanding? Could it not also be an intelligence that secretly knows he might appear slightly less blatantly ridiculous to some people! As there are degrees of "almost" arguing, and also what makes a terrorist act, so can he be less blatant and ridiculous.