Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Instead of Fixing the U.S. Economy or Creating Jobs for AMERICANS, Obama Will Spend The Money in Afghanistan and Iraq
America is in the most severe unemployment crisis since - and perhaps including - the Great Depression.
And yet Obama, like Bush, has done virtually nothing to create more jobs. Instead, they both gave trillions to the biggest banks (who are not loaning it out to the little guy) and for waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obama is apparently escalating - not ending - the wars. And its not cheap.
According to the White House, the cost of deploying new soldiers to Afghanistan could be $1 million per soldier. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the Iraq war will cost $3-5 trillion dollars.
As I have previously pointed out, protracted war increases unemployment, shrinks the economy, and causes recession. See this, this and this.
But deficits don't matter, right? Wrong.
But We Had No Choice ... We Had to Fight Those Wars
But - you may say - we had no choice, we had to fight those wars because of 9/11.
Well, top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change long before 9/11. In fact, they say that regime change was advocated one month after Bush took office:
The Brits previously revealed that intelligence and purported facts of Iraq's weapons programs were "fixed around" the pre-set policy of invading Iraq.The chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee in 2001 told investigators Monday that elements of the Bush Administration were pushing for regime change in Iraq in early 2001, months before the 9/11 attacks and two years before President George W. Bush formally announced the Iraq war.
Sir Peter Ricketts, now-Secretary at the Foreign Office, said that US and British officials believed at the time that measures against Iraq were failing: "sanctions, an incentive to lift sanctions if Saddam allowed the United Weapons inspectors to return, and the 'no fly' zones over the north and south of the country."
Ricketts also said that US officials had raised the prospect of regime change in Iraq, asserting that the British weren't supportive of the idea at the time.
***The head of the British Foreign Office's Middle East department, Sir William Patey, told the inquiry that his office was aware of regime change talk from some parts of the Bush Administration shortly after they took office in 2001.
"In February 2001 we were aware of these drum beats from Washington and internally we discussed it," Patey said. "Our policy was to stay away from that."
It's not just the Brits.
Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted "crap" in its justifications for invading Iraq.
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11.
Everyone knew the WMD claims were fake. For example, the number 2 Democrat in the Senate, who was on the Senate intelligence committee, admitted that the Senate intelligence committee knew before the war started that Bush's public statements about Iraqi WMDs were false. And if the committee knew, then the White House knew as well.
And Tony Blair - the British Prime Minister - knew that Saddam possessed no WMDs. If America's closest ally Britain knew, then the White House knew as well.
The CIA warned the White House that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions (using forged documents) were false, and yet the White House made those claims anyway.
Cheney was largely responsible for generating fake intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the war. For example:
- Falsified documents which were meant to show that Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime had been trying to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger can be traced back to Vice President Dick Cheney
And you may have heard that the Energy Task Force chaired by Cheney prior to 9/11 collected maps of Iraqi oil fields and potential suitors for that oil. But you probably don't know that a secret document written by the National Security Council on February 3, 2001 directed the N.S.C. staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields”.
In other words, it is difficult to brush off Cheney's Energy Task Force's examination of Iraqi oil maps as a harmless comparison of American energy policy with known oil reserves because the N.S.C. explicitly linked the Task Force, oil, and regime change. Indeed, a former senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. said:
If this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.(and see this).
Cheney's role in getting the U.S. into unnecessary military confrontations is not new. According to former high-level intelligence officer Melvin Goodman, during the Ford administration, Cheney orchestrated phony intelligence for the Congress in order to get an endorsement for covert arms shipments to anti-government forces in Angola.
And in the 1970's, Cheney was instrumental in generating fake intelligence exaggerating the Soviet threat in order to undermine coexistence between the U.S. and Soviet Union, which conveniently justified huge amounts of cold war spending. See also this. This scheme foreshadowed Mr. Cheney's role in generating fake intelligence in Iraq by 30 years.
And Cheney was the guy who directed all counter-terrorism activities in 2001 and who directed the U.S. response on 9/11, accidentally allowing hijacked planes to fly all over the place, and perhaps - as implied by Secretary of Transportation Norm Minetta - to slam into the Pentagon (confirmed here). Heck of a job, Dick ...
The government also apparently planned the Afghanistan war before 9/11 (see this and this).
But you don't even have to even think about all of the complex facts discussed above. It's really simple: when asked to specify exactly why we are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama cannot really explain why we are still there.
(It's also simple because the top bipartisan experts say that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this and this).
The Wars Are Unnecessary and Are Killing the Economy
Bottom line: The wars are unnecessary, and they are draining resources which could be used to reduce unemployment and help the economy.
Note: This is not a Republican versus Democratic issue. For example, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, calling for regime change in Iraq. And Obama is escalating wars started by the previous administration.
13 comments:
→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).
→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).
→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:
-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over
-- Comments that explicitly call for violence
→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.
Posts
Just as LBJ spent money on Nam, instead of [The Great Society] Now Obama will take us into further debt with endless wars. The race to the bottom continues.
ReplyDeleteGeez, no comments from the pro war group here at all. They are all hittin ZH today.
ReplyDeleteWould collapse be such a bad thing? Are you that enamored with US imperialism?
ReplyDeleteThanks for this going to this topic. You have a lot to offer.
ReplyDeleteLots to think about. On the way home after a hard day of work, I saw that our President has decided to 'finish the job.'
Wars suck, let's feed the hungry instead.
ReplyDeleteThis is brilliant, GW. I so appreciate your work, and only have time from my own attempt in writing to pop-in from time-to-time to express my gratitude. This is so on the money, literally!
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I think I should expressly write to direct my readers to this article. Marcy Winograd, candidate to replace Jane Harmon (who should have been arrested for treason for her taped actions with Israeli agents), poignantly points out that 100 soldiers' cost in Afghanistan is the shortfall in the University of California budget.
another person making a very similar argument is antonia juhasz, author of what i think is one of the best critiques of the invasion of iraq. my crude summary/recollection of her argument is that the sanctions were failing in the mind of the united states and were possibly about to end. u.s. oil companies were being shunned by iraq, which was courting russian, french and other countries' oil companies. thus, remove saddam and make sure a regime friendly to u.s. oil interests is installed. see her book: the bush agenda: invading the world one economy at a time at www.bushagenda.net
ReplyDeleteNo change for the better is like a change for the worst....thanks for nothing Obama clown!
ReplyDeletewars are worthless, justlike politicians and celebrities.
ReplyDeleteObama is working overtime to make sure his constituents join the right in disgust of his brillient moves.
ReplyDeleteSo, other than talking can anyone suggest how to stop the war legally.
ReplyDeleteI can.
Start a website devoted to stopping the war and voting out of office anyone who wants to continue the war.
It will take less than 4 years to end the war.
Also include in the website, linkage is the proper spin, vote out anyone who does not put ameroica back to full employment.
Again total time is less than 4 years if all voting records are used and every vote counted. That means anyone who voted for war or for additional war funding should be removed from office by the voters.
Sarcasm coming your way......
ReplyDeleteHaven't you heard? The wars are over. We are now only there to prevent the "insurgents" from disrupting the "natural development" of democracy in the Middle East.
So just pull out and leave thousands upon thousands to be slaughtered? Not to mention the millions of girls who are allowed to go to school now, or the women who are allowed to work and not live a life full of fear.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow... Where does the war money go? it goes to companies who produce munitions, uniforms, food, vehicles, aircraft and several other types of necessary equipment made by American Companies (and into the economy). So if you stop the war and thats billions of dollars that government keeps, not circulating. Also, the wars stop and hundreds of thousands of workers are laid off from contracted companies, thousands of soldiers choose to no re-enlist and become part of the unemployed masses. Our economy sucks, not because of the wars, but because of the American people and their lack of accountability and sense of entitlement.
Yeah, you will all call me crazy and all kind of other names but I dont care. The wars are good for me. Ive been working in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 4 years and I collect a great paycheck for my services. What is my favorite part? capturing and imprisoning people that murder others based solely on their beliefs. I love it.
The only way to end these wars? Mass Genocide! Thats right, I said it... as sad as it is, thats the only way to stop the Muslim Extremists... And do not try to tell me that Islam is a great, peace loving religion. I am a Jew, and I know what it is to be in their crosshairs.
You want the Economy to improve? Round up ALL the illegal immigrants, give them a tax ID number and make them pay (Back taxes as well). Live within your means, pay your bills, Work hard and do whats right...
Im already bored with Afghanistan and Iraq, I wanna see Iran next!