Showing posts with label Perpetual war for perpetual peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Perpetual war for perpetual peace. Show all posts

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Eisenhower's worst fears came true. We invent enemies to buy the bombs - By Simon Jenkins - The Guardian, UK

 -------------------------

AS LONG AS JEWS/ZIONISTS ARE IN IMPORTANT POLICY MAKING POSITIONS IN THE WEST, WAR CANNOT BE STOPPED; AS THEY BELIEVE IN THE DICTUM OF PERMANENT WAR FOR PERMANENT PEACE. ONLY THEIR IDEA OF 'PEACE' IS CERTAINLY NOT SHARED BY REST OF THE WORLD.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

-------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/16/eisenhower-fears-invent-enemies-buy-bombs

guardian.co.uk home

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

  • Simon Jenkins
  • Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes. Britain's borders and British people have not been under serious threat for a generation. Yet time and again our leaders crave battle. Why? 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 defence investment represented 75% of the Nato defence expenditure, where once it was only half. Having been forced to extend his war on 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.   Joe Magee: Guardian 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 would mean "challenging decisions about priorities". Sailors never talk straight: he meant more ships. The navy has used so many of its £500,000 Tomahawk missiles trying to hit Colonel Gaddafi (and missing) over the past month that it needs money for more. In a clearly co-ordinated lobby, the head of the RAF also demanded "a significant uplift in spending after 2015, if the service is to meet its commitments". It, of course, defines its commitments itself. Libya has cost Britain £100m so far, and rising. But Iraq and the Afghan war are costing America $3bn a week, and there is scarcely an industry, or a state, in the country that does not see some of this money. These wars show no signs of being ended, let alone won. But to the defence lobby what matters is the money. It sustains combat by constantly promising success and inducing politicians and journalists to see "more enemy dead", "a glimmer of hope" and "a corner about to be turned". 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". This is what the defence lobby wants institutionally, even if it may appal the generals. In the 1980s Russia watched the same process in Afghanistan, where it took a dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, to face down the Red Army and demand withdrawal. The west has no Gorbachev in Afghanistan at the moment. Nato's Rasmussen says he "could not envisage" a land war in Libya, since the UN would take over if Gaddafi were toppled. He must know this is nonsense. But then he said Nato would only enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. He achieved that weeks ago, but is still bombing. 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 president Eisenhower. He was no leftwinger, but a former general and conservative Republican. Looking back over his time in office, his farewell message to America was a simple warning against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" of a military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence on government". A burgeoning defence establishment, backed by large corporate interests, would one day employ so many people as to corrupt the political system. (His original draft even referred to a "military-industrial-congressional complex".) This lobby, said Eisenhower, could become so huge as to "endanger our liberties and democratic processes". I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US, with a military grown from 3.5 million people to 5 million. The western nations face less of a threat to their integrity and security than ever in history, yet their defence industries cry for ever more money and ever more things to do. The cold war strategist, George Kennan, wrote prophetically: "Were the 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 2.5%, or for the Nato "target" of 2%. 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 sank into a swamp of kidnapping, torture and imprisonment without trial. The belligerent posture of the US and Britain towards the Muslim world has fostered antagonism and moderate threats in response. The bombing of extremist targets in Pakistan is an invitation for terrorists to attack us, and then a need for defence against such attack. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost of appeasing the complex is astronomical. Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. Likewise, each Tomahawk Cameron drops on 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's defence ministry ran out of budgetary control under Labour. 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 defence secretary. In his anger, Gates threatened that "future US leaders … may not consider the return on America's investment in Nato worth the cost". Is that a threat or a promise?

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Letter to the Editor : US should have learned the lesson from Great Britain, the world’s most successful colonialist By Ghulam Muhammed


Saturday, January 16, 2010

Letter to the Editor

US should have learned the lesson fromGreat Britain, the world’s most successful colonialist

There cannot be any doubt or debate that 18th/19th century Great Britain was the most successful colonial power that the world history has so far witnessed. The more relevant lesson to be learned from history at the moment is; as to how a prolonged war with Axis forces knocked off its economic power base and it had to call on the US to fill in the vacuum caused by its compulsion to pull out of its colonies.

US itself was at one time a British colony and had to fight a protracted war to get its freedom from the British Crown. Still Britain was able to drag the US to leave is shores and venture forth in the name of saving humanity. Some would swear it was all British Jewry’s successful effort that finally sealed America’s fate.

Doubts can be raised if 9/11 should be the designated the landmark event to inaugurate the American Jewish Neo-con’s most potent blueprint for American policy makers to venture forth in the world, while its armed forces were now free from any threat from its post-World War rival, the Soviet Union. But the way America’s foreign forays with state of art armories pounding and devastating country after country, portents are emerging that as America is overreaching its capacity to colonize and hold the colonies, it may face the same fate that befell the British colonialist. There is further corollary that while British called on the US to take over, the most eligible contender to fall to that bait, this time around will be China.

Though people dread a confrontation between US and China, there is a possibility thatChina, instead of challenging the US in any conflagration, will rather use its leverages with the US very judiciously, and take over America’s various international institutional prerogatives as the biggest creditor nation.

On the other hand, it is an open question, if international Zionists have been nourishing any hidden agenda to once again ride the waves and jump on the Chinese bandwagon. Given their specialization in promoting warfare, they would rather promote an armed conflict between US and China. There has never been a devastating war of the scale of the two World Wars on proper Asian soil. Zionist warmongers have their role cut out. It is perpetual war for perpetual peace for the Zionists. Once the world is at peace, Zionists hold, it will come after them, to take revenge for their acts of real or imagined acts of commission or omission.

If America could learn the lessons from the plight of the British colonial power, it should desist from further depleting of its resource reserves and choose a more cooperative life, to offer the world a new alternative of peace with prosperity. Besides, did not British pull out its colonies in such a smooth transition, that none of its own citizens were confronted with wholesale annihilation? Obama should take up that option for the continued prosperity of the US, without its own people coming under physical threats.

It is also time for the Indian policymakers to properly evaluate their moves in walking into the Zionist parlor, with their eyes shut.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai