Glenn Greenwald, a journalist for Salon.com published an excellent article that exposed the use of former high-ranking US servicemen to provide objective analysis on issues on national defence on NBC something that would be of non-issue if the same "experts" were not hired by various defence contracts and have a clear conflict of interest with providing the public with information that could damage their employees healthy war profits.
Former General Barry McCaffrey is one of those so called "experts" that has come to notoriety, as it has become public knowledge that he presented a presentation to the top editors of NBC entitled Iran & the Gulf: Creeping towards war" a blatant propaganda piece meant to incite conflict which we can now see thanks to the presentation slides being leaked
"It is in my opinion that we are now in a high-risk situation in the Gulf with a significant probability of Iranian escalation within the next ninety days" - General McCraffrey
This news seems pretty alarming until you read the sentence just below the paragraph which states that the United States Navy is moving three carrier groups into the region. Three Carrier Groups? One Carrier group is enough to cause serious damage to Iran, how do you expect the Iranian regime to react when the most powerful navy in the world is flexing it's muscles right outside your front door? The American media and government went crazy over the Iranian Navy sending a singular frigate into the Mediterranean to meet up with it's Syrian counterparts on a training exercise so why can't the Iranian regime show a similar reaction over a much large task force arriving near to it's sovereign territory for no explicit reason.
 |
| A single carrier group (USS Ronald Reagan) |
The report also claims the conclusion from an intelligence assessment that claims that the Iranian Navy lack the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz, according to this presentation the Iranian Military could not just close the Strait of Hormuz but also strike GSC economic targets with "highly advanced aircraft" and it's a "high probability" that the Iranians could sink a US aircraft carrier, pretty hilarious if you read other sections of the report on the Iranian military as it views the capability of the Iranian military, calling the aircraft of the Iranian air-force "obsolete" and the command structure of the Iranian air-defence network "weak and vulnerable to electronic warfare"
 |
| Strait of Hormuz |
Why would the Iranian Navy even consider closing the Strait of Hormuz? Due to the large amount of economic sanctions placed on the country the Iranian economy has become increasingly dependent on the sale of oil and natural gas to a small amount of countries that are still willing to trade with Iran, closing the route this oil travels down with sea-mines and submarines would kill the Iranian economy and lead to de-stabilization that could even topple the Iranian regime, closing the strait would also result in direct military intervention from the oil rich countries which also depend on the strait for economic survival and the United States and i'm guessing that the Iranian regime don't wish to see a large part of their military destroyed.
Stopping the spread of nuclear proliferation seems to be a common trend with those supporting military intervention with Iran, something taken from the build-up to the Iraq war when so called "experts" claimed that the Iraqi regime had the capability to launch nuclear missiles at Israel and other American strategic assets in the region. This report adds to the propaganda claiming that the Iranian regime has the capability to construct nuclear weapons in "60 months" and "strike against targets in Israel, GCC States and US regional US forces" so Iran is going to have the capability to strike with a nuclear weapon in five years? Even if this fact is true why would it matter? Israel has it's own nuclear weapons and any strike against Israel would result in direct nuclear relation against the Iranian state that would result in complete and utter destruction and the loss of tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives. The presentation also fails to include the opinion of the Supreme Leader of Iran who says on his official website
"We believe that using nuclear weapons is haraam and prohibited and that it is everybody’s duty to make efforts to protect humanity against this great disaster." - Supreme Leader of Iran Khameni
Israeli Mossad Chief Tamir Pado has even been heard by Israeli ambassadors and envoys claiming that even a nuclear Iran would not threaten the continued existence of the Israeli state and Former Mossad Chief Effaim Halevy has been quoted saying the same thing and believes that Israel and Iran can return to peaceful relations enjoyed before the Iranian revolution
"What is the significance of the term existential threat?" the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking. "Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That's not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely."
I think Israel is strong enough to protect itself, to take care of itself. I think ultimately it is not in the power of Iran to destroy the state of Israel,” - Efraim Halevy
It appears then this report is another piece of propaganda made be employees of the defence contractor to bait the United States and it's allies into another middle eastern conflict to bolster their already massive profits with the blood of soldiers and innocent civilians.
Leaked presentation source: http://media.salon.com/2012/02/Scan0011.pdf
Nicely put!
ReplyDeleteEspecially the ending. The American corporations are bloodthirsty profit/power-hungry vampires that are attempting to drain the world dry to satisfy their own profits whilst justifying it with "economic growth", "anti-terrorism", or in the cases of fighting Communists or dictatorships in general "defending civilians".
This sadly is very much propaganda since the Vietnam War was disaster for the Americans, with a smaller, ill-equipped guerilla army beating the bottoms out of a "super-power"; while civilians in both Vietnams, in addition to Laos as well as Cambodia, totalled 3-5 million civilian deaths as a result of this war to "contain communism".
I also began to notice how Robert McNamara tried to lead the war as if it were a petrol company running on merely statistics, then you see the result of such. Or how I came to realize the corporations or capitalistic governments controlled by corporations through the common grounds of wealth & corruption attempt to gain even more power through stopping Communism, which is really a threat to corporations more than it is a threat to anyone else.
Even here in Japan (although now we are more or less socialist with public sector policies expanded for healthcare, education, among other things) I sometimes notice corporations such as the overall Mitsubishi Conglomerate owning so much influence that it makes me sick.
If all these companies--especially the ones with terrible pasts of exploiting or committing atrocities to their employees in third world nations--seized power, imagine the resulting corporate police state with compulsory consumerism, with total enslaving & oppression of the people to force them to either toil in the fields for the corporations' profits, or mass consume their products (even if they do not need them), as well as implementing methods similar to those found in 1984.
I read that book, then originally assumed the English Socialist (IngSoc) party to be right wing corporatist because its behaviour seemed more likely leaning that way, plus how Wikipedia's interpretation showed the party turned against everything it stood for to merely retain power.
Now imagine if the corporations attempted to use those very methods to keep an eye on the population, to exploit the people, to keep them enslaved under the greed in addition to seething bloodthirsty corruption of the corporate executives. In my opinion wealthy people have remained for the most part ignorant of the rest of society, constantly attempting to ignore the truth of the often terrible conditions lower class people endure, merely to maintain their leisure lives.
It disgusts me though when American politicians simply allow oil companies to manipulate them in their policies in the Middle East (rightly so because after all the oil there is in massive reserves).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNicely put!
ReplyDeleteEspecially the ending. The American corporations are bloodthirsty profit/power-hungry vampires that are attempting to drain the world dry to satisfy their own profits whilst justifying it with "economic growth", "anti-terrorism", or in the cases of fighting Communists or dictatorships in general "defending civilians".
This sadly is very much propaganda since the Vietnam War was disaster for the Americans, with a smaller, ill-equipped guerilla army beating the bottoms out of a "super-power"; while civilians in both Vietnams, in addition to Laos as well as Cambodia, totalled 3-5 million civilian deaths as a result of this war to "contain communism".
I also began to notice how Robert McNamara tried to lead the war as if it were a petrol company running on merely statistics, then you see the result of such. Or how I came to realize the corporations or capitalistic governments controlled by corporations through the common grounds of wealth & corruption attempt to gain even more power through stopping Communism, which is really a threat to corporations more than it is a threat to anyone else.
Even here in Japan (although now we are more or less socialist with public sector policies expanded for healthcare, education, among other things) I sometimes notice corporations such as the overall Mitsubishi Conglomerate owning so much influence that it makes me sick.
If all these companies--especially the ones with terrible pasts of exploiting or committing atrocities to their employees in third world nations--seized power, imagine the resulting corporate police state with compulsory consumerism, with total enslaving & oppression of the people to force them to either toil in the fields for the corporations' profits, or mass consume their products (even if they do not need them), as well as implementing methods similar to those found in 1984.
I read that book, then originally assumed the English Socialist (IngSoc) party to be right wing corporatist because its behaviour seemed more likely leaning that way, plus how Wikipedia's interpretation showed the party turned against everything it stood for to merely retain power.
Now imagine if the corporations attempted to use those very methods to keep an eye on the population, to exploit the people, to keep them enslaved under the greed in addition to seething bloodthirsty corruption of the corporate executives. In my opinion wealthy people have remained for the most part ignorant of the rest of society, constantly attempting to ignore the truth of the often terrible conditions lower class people endure, merely to maintain their leisure lives.
It disgusts me though when American politicians simply allow oil companies to manipulate them in their policies in the Middle East (rightly so because after all the oil there is in massive reserves).
English Socialism (IngSoc) was communism under Stalin and the Soviet Union. Two minutes hate? Propaganda around Trotsky after his assassination. Endless war? Soviet Union controlling Eastern Europe after WW2, the cold war could also be seen as an attempt by the SU to distract Eastern European citizens from how their country was being pillaged to fund for Soviet reconstruction efforts.
DeleteSo why I feel that the invasion of Iraq was certainly influenced by corporations I don't think that these corporations control the government nor would they ever wish to establish a country.
The United States government was often very hypocritical too in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThey did try to use the media to protect their little crusades, or to lie about what was really happening, or even to distract their people from the truth. In Vietnam Nixon was the worst, he supposedly tried to stop it them resumed bombings, even to the point of invading Cambodia as well as Laos to expand the war there. Had it continued China, Russia, as well as very possibly Burma would have entered to intervene just like in Korea (which is not an allied victory in my opinion since the only reason they repelled the Chinese forces was because of swift last minute thinking in mobilizing large amounts of aircraft to the war front, or possibly preparing nuclear threats; which no one wins... seriously nuclear war with Russia is suicide).
Iran today is something not to be underestimated. To begin with, they made their own anti-shipping ballistic missile, they have developed their own cruise missile programmes as well as went to develop a strong network of air defences, even having stealth fighter programmes under development. The foul mistake of repeating the epic fail Eisenhower did in Russia (the U-2 incident), the Americans stupidly lost an RQ-170 stealth drone to Iran allowing them the chance to proliferate stealth technology at even faster rates. Additionally, compared to most conceptions, Iran used to be supplied by the West, which means its equipment is more or less up-to-date as well as capable of inflicting heavy losses. Even in terms of Russian equipment they made recent procurements to obtain Russian arms of recent models, which are bottom-kicking material.
Which in the end brings me to say this about Iraq: the only reason it lost was because it lacked air superiority (even American tanks could fall at the hands of air based anti-tank weapons) to counter the NATO aerial assault. It was also not expecting such an attack coming in from Saudi Arabia, nor was it expecting its capital being the direct target of American forces, whom conducted their attack in a straight line.
If Iraq were prepared, it would have been a Vietnam instead of a Poland. Now, I have something to say about China too. The last time I visited there I saw their military parades as well as I heard their capabilities in person. China, has nice air defences, a modernizing navy, a potent arsenal of missiles, in addition to ever better aircraft. If it continues to modernize, our JMSDF would not only have difficulties yet even the USN would be unable ti fight there.
To conclude, Western analysts have made severe strategic mistakes in underestimating their foes.
The United States did not really control the media during the Vietnam War, one of the reasons that led to the United States eventually pulling out of the country was the shocking and often horrific pictures that US News outlets were broadcasting from the shattered country every single day, it shattered the home front and created a rallying cry for anti-war protesters.
DeleteThe Iranian Military certainly have the capability to damage any opponent heavily in a defensive situation however they don't have the numbers to hold any defensive line for an extended period of time. Stealth fighters? Iran is making it's first inroads into stealth technology and any fighter of a reasonable standard won't be ready for another 20+ years, the stealth drone they stole contained no groundbreaking new technology and they won't leap ahead with this rather simple find.
Iran had the advantage because they know that no American politician no matter how corrupt would wish to see thousands of American sailors and soldiers die before even touching Iranian soil, nothing to do with technology although I do have to congratulate them for maintaining a reasonable defence industry despite the international sanctions.
Although you do have some small points I don't agree with your entire argument. It's pretty common knowledge that US corporations have profited from the conflict in Iraq however their greed was not the singular reason for military intervention and regime change. Saddam was put into power by the American Government in order to contain communism in the region and he did, immediately ordering the arrest and killing of all those that opposed his reign on power and utilizing a cult of personality to enforce some sort of dependence on his rule. Saddam was even "convinced" into invading Iran in an attempt to curtail the effects of the Islamic revolution in Iran on the wider region.
ReplyDeleteAfter a while however Saddam became to be seen by some as a liability by the West. Iraq was purchasing weapons from the Soviet Union and was also attempting to gain regional influence and form it's own foreign policy away from the United States, of course the countries poor relations with Kuwait and subsequent Iraqi invasion killed any hope of him currying favour with the West ever again. Of course Bush Sr could not march on Baghdad during the First Gulf War so Bush Jr simply organized the mainstream media to promote the idea that Iraq had nuclear weapons and the capability to attack the United States, they also began to hint that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (something a large portion of American's believed for several years after and still do). Profits for the defence and resource industry are only an extra bonus to completing your fathers work.
Vietnam itself had nothing to do with corporate greed if thats what you are implying. The American Government especially at that time was paranoid about communism expansion especially in the key area around South East Asia. The Domino Theory was widely accepted as fact as the American Government and it was seen that US regional allies including Japan could be adversely effected by a successful revolution in Vietnam, of course the US failed to adapt in time to the changing battlefield tactics and bombing Laos and Cambodia was an attempt by the USAF to cut the infamous Ho Chi Minh trail that was moving supplies and manpower to the Vietnamese insurgency across South Vietnam, the ends justified the means in the containment of communism. The Viet Cong were not ill-equipped however they received modern armaments and the traps they used deeply effected morale with US soldiers constantly on the look out for the next crippling trap hidden in the forest.
I don't know much about the corporate situation in Japan however from what little I do know I feel Japanese corporations hold themselves to a higher standards then an American corporation for example, perhaps Japanese culture is geared more towards helping your fellow citizens whilst American culture is more individualistic? I certainly feel that the 1% have a large influence in American politics however Western European countries have certain regulation surrounding political party financing and I feel the media is more geared to exposing any large donations, these political regulations can reduce the effect a persons wealth has on the governments future policy.
The entire idea about a corporatist society though? It's a fantasy land, running a country can be a profitable venture in the short term however eventually all reasonable governments eventually need to run a budget deficit to increase GDP or ride out an economic storm, simply running a third-world country under the principles of oppression and forced labour will not provide a stable economic basis and will result in huge costs and eventual revolution or even international intervention against your regime. 1984 was George Orwell warning those against the cult of personality, imperialism and authoritarianism of Stalin's Russia nothing to do with corporatism.