In short, (Country X) and other countries should be freeâto do what we want them to doâand should choose their course independently, as long as their choice conforms to our interests. If they use the freedom we accord them unwisely, then naturally we are entitled to respond in self-defense. Note that these ideas are a close counterpart to the domestic conception of democracy as a form of population control.
The basic presuppositions of discourse include those just reviewed: U.S. foreign policy is guided by a âyearning for democracyâ and general benevolent intent; history and the secret planning record may tell a rather different story, but they are off the media agenda. It follows that the use of force can only be an exercise in self-defense and that those who try to resist must be aggressors, even in their own lands. What is more, no country has the right of self-defense against U.S. attack, and the United States has the natural right to impose its will, by force if necessary and feasible. These doctrines need not be expressed, apart from periodic odes to our awesome nobility of purpose. Rather, they are simply presupposed, setting the bounds of discourse, and among the properly educated, the bounds of thinkable thought.
Is âWhataboutismâ Always a Bad Thing? Discussing the crimes of our own country as well as the crimes of others is not always an effort to downplay other countriesâ crimesâit can be a test of whether we are serious about our principles.
Rules for thee... Where Is Americaâs âRules-Based Orderâ Now? The United Statesâ failure to ensure enforcement of the U.N. cease-fire resolution regarding Israel undermines the international rules-based order.
"Perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy."
America has no Ukraine Plan B except more war
Instead of collapsing, Russia has become the focal point for a reorganization of global supply chains and their financing, and its economy is growing, rather than shrinking by half, as President Biden promised in March 2022.
Joint action by Hondurasâ military and judiciary â in a manner the U.S. ambassador called âclearly illegalâ and âtotally illegitimateâ at the time â forced Zelaya to pay for these sins in late June 2009. While the White Houseâs reaction to the coup initially appeared confused, Washington soon recovered its footing. Even as huge protests raged, the Obama administrationplayeda key role in ultimately compelling Hondurasâ people and the regionâs governments to acquiesce to the regime change as a fait accompli.
Despite widespread repression by the post-coup de facto government, accounts of fraud, and the condemnation of many countries and international organizations (including the normally deferential Organization of American States), U.S.-endorsed elections in November 2009 received Washingtonâs imprimatur. In her memoirs (the passage excised from the bookâs paperback edition with no explanation), then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained that the U.S. sought to ârender the question of Zelaya moot and give the Honduran people a chance to choose their own future.â
It was in this context that Hernández catapulted into power. After Porfirio Lobo won the 2009 presidential race, Hernández became President of the National Congress as a member of Loboâs National Party â an institution historically closely linked to U.S. agribusiness. Lobo was Hernándezâs mentor and groomed his protege to succeed him. But while Hernández enjoyed success, the coupâs consequencesconstituted disaster for ordinary Hondurans.
In Washingtonâs eyes, however, such concerns took a back seat to longstanding strategic needs: above all, Hondurasâ openness to foreign investment and its role as a base for American military power. And, as head of the National Congress, Hernandez was seen as particularly amenable to U.S. desires.
The expenses that I have just been describing come to $970 billion, but that leaves out a lot.. Add in about $800 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the State Department and its associated agencies, the Department of Homeland Security. And we know now from our Republican friends that border protection is a dire national security issue. Add all that together. Then you can calculate the share for the interest on the debt that we pay each year. All those activities I've just described come to 21% of all federal spending. Calculating in that percentage as a the amount it contributes to the debt burden gives you $254 billion.. And so you add all of that up together and you get $1.767 trillion.
For years we had the Overseas Contingency Operations defense spending, the so called war budget, which was the extra money the military got for actually fighting wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Are we getting back to that?
Yes. The politically-derived budget caps donât apply to that money. And itâs a lot more than just for the wars; lots of billions for goodies for everybody added each year there. It's all part of the hocus pocus ways that Congress allows itself to appropriate money so it can pretend that it's using restraint, but actually is exploiting all kinds of loopholes to increase whatever cap or restraint they pretend that they've added to the defense budget.
There was no axis then, and there still isnât one now.
The purpose in tying together unrelated adversaries has always been to exaggerate the size of the threat to the United States to scare policymakers and the public into supporting more military spending and more overseas conflicts. If inflating the threat from any one adversary isnât enough to instill sufficient fear, the invention of an axis that includes some or all adversaries around the globe can be very useful to hawks. Because it automatically calls to mind World War II and the fight against the Axis Powers, it also helps them to demonize the other states and smother domestic dissent. Supporters of hawkish policies in each region will then have an incentive to embrace the axis rhetoric and reinforce these views among their political allies.
The axis of evil was always bullshit rhetoric, but in practice the current state of cooperation between Russia, Iran, and North Korea is closer to what was put forward when the term was coined than previously. The war-mongering arms trade pipeline between the three developed during the support for the Syrian government and continues to support Russian expansionism and Iran's goals of increasing their influence in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan. North Korea is mostly in it for the money but also needs the permanent war-footing as the foundation of their politico-cult.
There was no axis then, and there still isnât one now.
The purpose in tying together unrelated adversaries has always been to exaggerate the size of the threat to the United States to scare policymakers and the public into supporting more military spending and more overseas conflicts. If inflating the threat from any one adversary isnât enough to instill sufficient fear, the invention of an axis that includes some or all adversaries around the globe can be very useful to hawks. Because it automatically calls to mind World War II and the fight against the Axis Powers, it also helps them to demonize the other states and smother domestic dissent. Supporters of hawkish policies in each region will then have an incentive to embrace the axis rhetoric and reinforce these views among their political allies.
U.S. soldiers face a quality-of-living crisis as the Pentagonâs recruitment woes persist, according to top-ranking enlisted officers from across the U.S. military.
âWeâve had a break in trust with our American people,â said Master Chief James Honea, the top enlisted adviser to Navy leadership, in a Wednesday congressional hearing. âWe have to do much better at taking careâ of our service members, Honea said, adding that he doesnât want the military to âreach a breaking pointâ where more people decide to leave the military.
Officers and members of Congress highlighted poorly maintained barracks, food insecurity, sexual violence, and limited access to healthcare and childcare as key problems facing U.S. soldiers today. Economic problems are particularly acute among military families, who often struggle to find jobs for civilian spouses and proper food and healthcare for their children.
âIt's time for our actions to match up with our words, as far as putting families above everything else,â said Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas).
The hearing gives insight into why the military is struggling to recruit soldiers even as Pentagon bigwigs prepare for a potential war with China in the coming years. According to a newly released Blue Star Families survey, only 32% of active-duty military families would recommend service to others â a 23-point drop since 2016. (...)
