The U.S. War Machine, Halliburton, and John McCain’s Utter Subservience to Power

[Time for change]

One of the most important new books around today is Eugene Jarecki’s “The American Way of War – Guided Missiles, Misguided Men and a Republic in Peril” (copyright October 2008). At least it is if you believe, as I do, that U.S. imperial overreach and militarism constitutes one of today’s gravest dangers to the American people and the people of the world.

In Jarecki’s attempt to examine how we came to our present state of militarism and imperialism, his book seeks out explanations that go far back in time:

Given all that has come to light about the errors and misdeeds of the Bush years, there is an understandable temptation to dwell on how George W. Bush and those around him could have so misguided the nation, destabilized the world and compromised American’s position in it. Yet, while accountability for these actions is vital, it must be accompanied by rigorous efforts to understand the historical forces that brought America to a place from which Bush’s radicalization of policy was possible…

The antecedents of unbridled U.S. militarism

Chief among the factors that Jarecki discusses to explain our current state of militarism are the rise of corporate power and the National Security Act of 1947.

The rise of corporate power of course is a major component of the Military-Industrial-Complex (MIC), which President Eisenhower warned us of in his farewell address of 1961. But the term MIC is incomplete. It is better described as the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex (MICC), to emphasize the role that Congress plays in the process. Eisenhower actually used this term in the original drafts of his speech, but he took it out in order to avoid insulting Congress.

The whole problem is of course bound up with the excessive role of money in politics. Congressional and Presidential campaigns in our country have become so expensive, and corporations that depend on U.S. wars for obscene profits have become so wealthy and powerful, that candidates for Congress and the U.S. Presidency have come to depend to a large extent on the contributions and support of these corporations. That creates a self-perpetuating cycle that we have not yet been able to rid ourselves of.

The National Security Act of 1947 compounded the problem by giving to the Executive Branch options that have successively led to a greater and greater concentration of war making powers in the hands of the President, thus magnifying the potential for war. We are now at a point where Congress barely even attempts to reclaim the prerogative to declare war – or not – provided to it in our Constitution. James Madison warned of this possibility in explaining why the framers of our Constitution gave the power to declare war to Congress rather than to the President:

Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other… War is the parent of armies … the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied… No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare… To chain the dogs of war, the Constitution has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature.

Explaining how the National Security Act of 1947 compounded the problem and accelerated our propensity to war, Jarecki says:

War profiteering was nothing new. What was new in the era of covert activity was the use of the CIA to implement invisibly the plans hatched in private consultation between the executive, select advocates in Congress, and their cronies in industry… The establishment of the CIA helped to create a new layer of secrecy and reduced accountability, blurring the line between America’s national interest and the private interests of corporations…

Halliburton

Jarecki devotes a few pages to Halliburton as the ultimate example of the outrages perpetrated by the MICC.

In 1992 Dick Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, awarded a $9 million contract to Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root to study the effects of privatizing military functions. Lo and behold, Brown & Root concluded “We think this is a terrific idea”. Cheney left office in 1993, and in 1995 he became the CEO of Halliburton, a job that he held until he was “elected” Vice President in 2000. Following their conclusion that privatization of the military was “a terrific idea”, Halliburton was awarded several hundred contracts to do just that. During that time, CEO Cheney increased his annual income from under a million dollars to $60 or $70 million.

Weeks into the Bush administration, Halliburton was awarded a five-year military contract worth $300 million, over the protests of the General Accounting Office. In subsequent years of the Bush administration, Halliburton was awarded more than $20 billion – that’s $20,000,000,000 – in military contracts. During that time, Halliburton was involved in numerous scandals, involving the conditions under which they received no-bid contracts, overcharging our government, and the unexplained disappearance of billions of dollars.

Jarecki discusses the many problems of privatizing military functions, emphasizing the issue of accountability:

Now it turns out we’re using private security contractors to interrogate prisoners… What’s the danger? Accountability. Is a private military company obligated, under any kind of international law that governs nations, to worry about human rights abuses? Torture? … The freedom of Information Act doesn’t apply to (private) companies… It (our corrupt privatization of military functions) is laughed at and held in great disdain around the world. And in Washington, D.C., it’s become standard operating procedure.

In an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Cheney excused the decision to award so many contracts to Halliburton by saying:

Halliburton is a unique kind of company… and they’ve traditionally done a lot of work for the U.S. government and the U.S. military… That expertise has stood the military in good stead over the years… It’s a great company. There are fine people working for it.

Jarecki comments on Cheney’s interview with Russert:

To hear a sitting Vice President give so unabashed an on-air plug to a major defense contractor, let alone one that is his former employer and one that is the country’s largest recipient of wartime contracts under his administration, speaks volumes about what Eisenhower called “the disastrous rise of misplaced power.”

John McCain’s dramatic turnaround

Over the years, John McCain carefully cultivated a moderate, “maverick” image, as preparation for running for President, while at the same time never straying too far from the right wing of the Republican Party. But in preparation for his 2008 campaign he decided that he needed to appeal more to the Republican Party’s right wing base in order to win the Republican nomination for President. Having won the Republican nomination, he then tried to simultaneously convince his base that he was a true right winger, while at the same time convincing moderate voters that he was still a “maverick”. That effort proved impossible, and McCain’s campaign went down in flames.

Jarecki notes a personal experience with the McCain campaign that is emblematic of his trying to speak out of both sides of his mouth. In the early years of the Bush administration, while McCain was still in his “maverick” mode, he had appeared in Jarecki’s documentary film, “Why we Fight”. Jarecki describes McCain’s role in that film:

Referring to the evolution of U.S. foreign policy, he (McCain) had said “How far does the United States go? And when does it go from a force for good to a force of imperialism?” On the subject of defense industry corruption, the senator declared: “President Eisenhower’s concern about the military-industrial complex – his words have unfortunately come true. He was worried that priorities are set by what benefits corporations as opposed to what benefits the country.”

More specifically, in response to a question about the awarding of no-bid contracts to Halliburton, McCain said:

It looks bad. It looks bad. And apparently, Halliburton more than once has overcharged the federal government. That’s wrong… I would have a public investigation of what they’ve done.

When Jarecki sent a courtesy copy of the film to McCain’s chief of staff, Mark Salter, prior to the film’s release in 2006, the McCain staff was not happy about it. Salter called Jarecki to complain, saying that the film “made it look like John McCain was critical of the vice president”, whereas McCain’s true position on the issue was that “Vice President Cheney has nothing to do with Halliburton”. Salter also said “When Senator McCain sat down to talk to you, he thought he was talking to a television crew from the BBC”. Jarecki responded by asking “Are you saying that there are things Senator McCain will say to a British audience that he isn’t comfortable saying to the American people?”

Salter was not amused. He warned Jarecki of the consequences of releasing the film as it was, and when Jarecki refused to comply, Salter “made good on his promise to smear my name in the media”, while noting that McCain “has complete respect for Mr. Cheney’s integrity”. Jarecki sums up the meaning of the incident:

Mark Salter was… guarding an invisible security barrier behind which the elite machinery of corporate-political power in America proceeds with contempt for public scrutiny. The episode was also a blatant demonstration of the executive’s power over Congress. Salter and McCain’s concern about offending Cheney was rooted in this troubling dynamic. More troubling were the passionate lengths to which they would go to pressure a filmmaker…

The silver lining

Though Jarecki spends the longest chapter of his book detailing with the many crimes and abuses of the Bush administration, he does find one silver lining:

The problems we face are far from simple… As the Bush years give way to those of a new administration, the silver lining of his presidency may just be that by having radicalized U.S. policy with so little resistance from either party in Congress, George W. Bush has produced a far-reaching collapse of public trust in government and the status quo. This invites and requires serious dialogue on America’s course…

Jarecki then notes the prerequisite for reforming our current militaristic system:

To this end, particularly given the extreme abuses of the Bush years, any effort at meaningful reform must begin with serious efforts to hold those who committed such abuses accountable. Without accountability, there is insufficient motivation for reform.

After proceeding to discuss the many obstacles to meaningful reform that might put us back on the right track, on the second to last page of his book Jarecki quotes Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff at the State Department under Colin Powell. Wilkerson had eventually become a severe critic of the Bush administration, even going so far as to propose the impeachment of George W. Bush. Jarecki quotes Wilkerson:

In G. W. Bush we see a president who has been able to concentrate power unlike any president in our history, in his vice president… therefore in the military instrument. Good leaders, like Truman, Eisenhower, and others, have tried to balance our founding republican values with keeping us as safe as is reasonably possible… But … in an accelerated and stunning fashion during the Bush presidency, you see these things combine with bad leadership to produce disastrous consequences.

[leftstreet]

1. Yep. Military Industrial CONGRESSIONAL Complex

Everyone forgets that part.

K&R

[hay rick]

3. And let's not forget the media.

Busily not blowing any whistles.

[Time for change]

12. Yes, they're part of our corporate sector

[Time for change]

4. Yes, and we're hoping that Congress will get us out of this mess

[bertman]

2. Recommend. A vivid reminder of where we are and how we got here.

Thanks, Time for change.

[Time for change]

5. Thank you bertman

[The Wizard]

6. Way back when

Eugene McCarthy was a freshman Congressman he noticed that the Department of War became the Department of Defense. That was the point at which we were put on the permanent war footing that invited defense contractors to hold sway over Congress in peace time as well as war.
As our country swirls down the rat hole, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress who get "campaign contributions" from defense contractors should be exposed and dealt with accordingly.
That the Bush cartel was able to do Norquist's dirty work by inflating the government to the point of bursting should be noted and acted upon. Seize the assets of Halliburton/Cheney/Bush and the rest of the thugs that knee capped the United States. Extraordinary rendition comes to mind.

[Time for change]

7. Yes, those Congresspersons need to be dealt with

At some point we must end legalized bribery of our elected representatives in our country.

[starroute]

8. There are some other factors behind the permanent wartime economy

When the National Security Act was passed in 1947, the country was falling into the first postwar recession. Worse than that -- nobody was sure that the Great Depression wasn't returning, as military production ended and returning veterans swelled the workforce.

At the same time, the Republicans who had taken control of Congress in the 1946 elections were determined to roll back the New Deal. Truman largely managed to forestall that -- but the Republicans were equally able to prevent Truman's own "Fair Deal" extensions of the New Deal from being put into place.

Now, in the minds of Republicans -- as we see very clearly even in their current line of drivel -- it was not the New Deal but World War II that had been the ultimate solution to the Depression. So creating a permanent wartime economy and ramping those weapons assembly lines back up was their natural solution to keeping the Big Bad Wolf of Depression away from the door.

From a Keynesian point of view, of course, any government spending is going to stimulate the economy -- and though military spending is a lot less productive than social spending, it did solve the immediate economic problems of the late 40's.

There was another factor to deal with, of course -- which was that people had been expecting a better life after the war and, with the exception of the GI Bill and its positive effects, they largely weren't getting it. That is why you had the great flowering of McCarthyite witch-hunts from 1947 to 1953. The ability of the left to suggest that there might be a better and fairer alternative to unlimited corporate control had to be stamped out by any means possible.

That single-minded combination of militarism and repression was never really viable as a longterm solution, of course. It's no coincidence that 1948 was the peak of film noir. The late 40's were a bitter and cynical time. In England, where the immediate postwar period was even bleaker and harsher, the novel 1984 envisioned a future of wartime limitations and repression infinitely prolonged -- and there was no convincing reason to think it wouldn't happen.

What really saved the US at that point was not the military-industrial solution but the fact that around 1950 the civilian economy kicked into high gear, consumer spending became a mainstay of economic growth, and the unions were able to negotiate an understanding with management that obtained a decent standard of living for most Americans in exchange for the damping out of any real radicalism.

Since then, we've continued following both tracks -- military Keynesianism on one hand, together with a series of devices for reinflating consumer spending any time it seemed to falter. But both have become increasingly threadbare in recent years. Not only does the nation's own weapons procurement keep swelling without reason or limit, but we've become arms dealer to the world. And consumer spending has been kept up only by easy credit and the availability of cheapjack shit from China.

As consumerism fails, though, we're back where we were in 1947. On one side is that 1984 nightmare of scarcity, repression, and endless war. On the other is the possibility that the country will finally wake up, stop slinging around that word "socialism" as an infallible argument-stopper, and start thinking about what combination of government spending, sustainable industry, and citizen creativity would really be effective at keeping essential goods and services circulating to where they are needed, without waste or extremes of inequality.

The question has been long deferred. I was born in 1947, and its non-solution has defined my entire lifetime. But now that the old quasi-answers are breaking down, we may finally be forced to address it.

[Time for change]

9. Very interesting points -- I was born just a little bit later than you

1950.

You point out that:

"In the minds of Republicans -- as we see very clearly even in their current line of drivel -- it was not the New Deal but World War II that had been the ultimate solution to the Depression. So creating a permanent wartime economy and ramping those weapons assembly lines back up was their natural solution to keeping the Big Bad Wolf of Depression away from the door."

It is quite true that this is the GOP party line. But do you think that they really believe it, or do you think that this is just part of their excuse to axe social programs so that there will be more money left for them?

It's just very hard for me to fathom that intelligent people really could believe that the best solution for permanently avoiding depression is a permanent wartime economy associated with nearly permanent war.

[bertman]

10. I think it's more of a choice of WHAT one decides to believe and WHO one uses as

his/her source of information.

If you're a rich (I almost spelled it reich), white guy you are very unlikely to reference Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, or Martin Luther King Jr as your sources of political/economic inspiration.

If you truly believe that humankind will always be beset by wars (as one might legitimately deduce from history) and that empires can achieve hegemony for a significant time, well, why not go for learning the lessons of some empires and neglecting others? I think a lot of these folks believe that we can balance our imperial aspirations against the negative aspects of empire-building because we have so much history to learn from and so much technology to help us overcome the potential threats to the empire. It becomes a game for the intelligensia to play, using the proles as pawns. When we hear from such vaunted "statesmen" as Henry Kissinger and Zbiegniew Brzezinski it's apparent that their playing field is Planet Earth. They and many other old world and new world aristocrats are doing a pretty good job of shoring up their positions and enriching themselves.

Taking incremental steps toward replacing democracy with fascism worldwide is already paying handsome dividends. The Bush era consolidated wealth and power on a never-before witnessed scale--into the hands of the elites. So, now they dial down the power grab for a few years with a more palatable American leader/symbol who gives our country and the world HOPE for CHANGE just long enough to allow them to continue beefing up their fascist forces in the Father-- I mean, Homeland. When the next inevitable round of repression comes there will be only a short but horrific spate of violence culminating in their total control.

David Rockefeller was very open about the agenda of world domination and his elitist group's role in attaining it.

So, as long as it's not your country that is suffering the physical devastation of the permanent wartime footing, you remain unscathed as the top dog of the snarling pack.

I've known quite a few Republicans over the years and think it's safe to say that the dog-eat-dog philosphy is one they adopt readily. Especially since they are not the dogs being eaten.

just sayin'.

[Time for change]

11. You have certainly hit on a lot of important issues

You seem to imply here either that: 1) There is substantial collusion between our incoming Democratic administration and something that appears to be much more sinister, or 2) The Obama administration has a lot less power to accomplish things that would appear to be the case.

Those are both very depressing thoughts.

I wish I had a better idea of what is happening.

[bertman]

13. You are correct in both 1) and 2). And it is depressing. However, there is always HOPE.

History and events have a way of subverting the best laid plans of mice and men, as Robert Burns reminded us a few years back.

I'm not trying to be fatalistic about what the powers-that-be have planned for us--I'm trying to be realistic. The evidence is all around us and, in many cases, well documented. But that doesn't mean that we cannot embrace the struggle to preserve the system our founding fathers and mothers worked so hard and sacrificed so much for.

It's our obligation as citizens of a democracy to be well-informed and to participate actively in helping influence the policies that are adopted and enacted. Often I feel powerless to change things, but still I email my President, my representatives and my Senators to remind them that I am paying attention and that I expect them to listen to me. It's a small part that most of us have to play in this drama, but an essential one. I wish that I had been more attentive to my responsibilities and duties as a citizen over the last 35-plus years. And as I reflect on how few of my friends and associates are actively involved in or even well-informed about their government, I'm alarmed by our overall indifference. But now, for the first time, I am issuing my own personal version of "alerts" or "bulletins" to all who will listen. Surprisingly, many folks are very interested and do act when informed. It's just that we have so many other obligations that steal our time for being well-informed and active citizen participants in our democracy.

The one great hope that I have is that our President, no matter how controlled he is by the power brokers, is instilling in Americans a renewed interest in being part of their government. Whether that will produce tangible positive results that will offset the negative possibilities is unknown. But one thing is for sure, we will not change anything if all we do is allow others to determine our fate.

You and many others on this site provide us with the background information that we need as we figure out how to move forward. What's that old saying about those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past . . . ?

[Time for change]

14. I like this part the best:

"One thing is for sure, we will not change anything if all we do is allow others to determine our fate."

Jarecki said something similar on the last page of his book. He was giving a talk at West Point, and one of the cadets asked him what he hoped to accomplish. Jarecki replied:

I hope by showing my film, and talking and writing, to encourage people to understand that it is not just possible but necessary for us all to address these fundamental issues the republic faces as we contemplate an uncertain future.

[bertman]

18. It is truly inspiring that he would have the brass to say these things to a class of

West Pointers AND that the brass would allow him to even be there espousing such ideas.

[slipslidingaway]

15. Kick for later n/t

[slipslidingaway]

16. "AMY GOODMAN: Explain your example of the B-1 bomber....

We need to focus on the silver lining he mentions, important subject and great post...thanks.


http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/20/eugene_jarecki_on_the_american_way

"Election Day is two weeks away, and this year may see one of the highest voter turnouts in US history. But filmmaker and author Eugene Jarecki argues that while voting is essential, it is not enough. He writes, “Unless we see our vote as part of a commitment to involve ourselves consistently and unrelentingly in the political process, our vote is wasted. This is because the forces that have led us to this economic, military, and political precipice exert such awesome power over the mechanics of Washington that no single candidate or group of legislators, whatever their intentions, can possibly go up against them unless armed with an irrepressible public mandate.” ....


AMY GOODMAN: Explain your example of the B-1 bomber.


EUGENE JARECKI: Perfect example. You know, the B-1 bomber has a piece of it made, a piece of the plane made, in every single US state. Now, why? I mean, that’s not an efficient way to make a product. So, it must be serving some end. And the end, it turns out, that it serves is that the B-1 bomber was designed by its makers according to a process called political engineering, fancy word for distributing the contracts and subcontracts to build a given weapons system to as many states, as many congressional districts as possible, not let’s make it as efficient as possible, but rather, let’s put it in as many districts as possible, so that if this thing ever comes up for review, everybody’s getting a piece of the action, everybody’s in on it. And as a result, when, you know, the questions arise—Do we need the B-1 bomber? Do we need to be spending this money?—there is a constituency built in in Congress that’s going to keep that thing going.


And what does that tell us? That tells us that—first of all, the defense sector is not alone in that. Every industry has their version of politically engineering Congress. But what it does is it puts the congressperson in a position of being a professional pleader to that corporation, that corporate interest, on behalf of them to the federal government. And it suborns, it really undermines the purity of their decision making. It produces some of the very tragic and wrong-headed decisions that we’ve seen in recent years..."

[Time for change]

17. Thank you -- Yes, we sure do have a screwed up system

And unfortunately, the MIC seems to have perfected the "political engineering" game better than anyone.

[slipslidingaway]

23. We sure do, I posted a link to your thread in the PV forum...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=270199&mesg_id=270199

[omega minimo]

19. ,

[Turborama]

20. Too late to rec but here's a big fat kick

Thank-you for writing and sharing this. I'm bookmarking to give it a proper read later.

Also thank-you for the reminder of the book, I was told about it a while ago and forgot to login to Amazon and order it - something I'm going to do right now.

Why we fight is available online too...

Full version on Google Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682

Well seeded torrent
http://www.mininova.org/tor/744554

Thanks again


:kick:

[G_j]

21. another, too late to rec..

this is SO crucial to understand.

[G_j]

22. kick

[LiberalLovinLug]

24. Kick again

VIP (very important post)