PARENTAL ADVISORY : This post contains video, audio and text information recounting real events of violence which may disturb some people, particularly children.
“South Park History of America”
At one time it was Russia. And Cuba. Of late, it’s been the whole of the world of Islam, pretty much. This Axis of Evil and War on Terror has kept the dream of a Foreign Enemy alive, keeping average Americans scared enough to cough up tax dollars for any Defense Department wheeze for warfare.
The policy of military intervention in other peoples’ regimes appears to be part of the genetic coding of the United States of America. It would take some serious psychotherapy to erase its impact, apparently. It’s really deeply embedded behaviour :-
“AdBusters.org presentation of American military interventions”
America cannot seem to function without identifying an enemy or a nation that needs their policing.
It appears that, maybe, in order to keep national cohesion, it is necessary for America to clearly define what is un-American, and send its Defense “attack dogs” after it.
The Department of Defense in the United States is continuously trying to justify its huge budget, so constantly scanning for possible threats.
Who will be the next Enemy of The States ?
This week, the Pentagon have bested their Climate Change report of 2004 (The Hague flooded by 2007, yeah, right) with yet another hard-hitting doom-laden warning.
And it looks like the new enemy will be any people from any country afflicted by Climate Change. The world’s poor, in other words.
We can hypothesise about which countries will qualify to be the poorest, most vulnerable to attack, and therefore make them the most likely targets for a credit-crunched American Military Offense.
Why does the state of the American Economy matter ? Well, it costs money to run down your victims around the globe and kill them into submission.
The incursion into Iraq has cost trillions of dollars, and there has been some foot-dragging about continuing to underwrite such extensive, expensive outsourced warfare.
But it may not only be poor countries that face Climate Armageddon threats from the USA. It may be the poorer people in every land. Those with limited incomes because of the permanent Recession/Depression. Those with problems with paying for increasingly expensive Energy and Fuel and Food.
With mass migrations from places like, say, drought-ridden Mexico, the United States could also face a vastly more numerous number of people living in abject poverty and insecurity within their own borders.
Will the American Government try to keep the population numb and passive in order to maintain stability ? Or will they turn their “command and control” military strategies on homeland dwellers, both Climate refugee and citizen ?
The leaders of the USA may resort to a programme of propaganda that outshines their work so far. As a correspondent has said about current Media manipulation : “it’s surprising that any significant number of people are resisting such an onslaught of propaganda and dumbed down mental sedative…There is a deliberate purpose to this stupifying the population – it serves as a substitute for overt oppression which will naturally come into play more as larger proportions of the public reject the transparent government dogma…If it gets out of control and attacks their own civilian population?…”
Peter Schwartz 2003
“An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security : PETER SCHWARTZ & DOUG RANDALL / GBN Global Business Network October 2003 : Imagining the Unthinkable : The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security. We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller. We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately. Executive Summary : There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. Because changes have been gradual so far, and are projected to be similarly gradual in the future, the effects of global warming have the potential to be manageable for most nations. Recent research, however, suggests that there is a possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world’s food production. With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment. The research suggests that once temperature rises above some threshold, adverse weather conditions could develop relatively abruptly, with persistent changes in the atmospheric circulation causing drops in some regions of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit in a single decade. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that altered climatic patterns could last for as much as a century, as they did when the ocean conveyor collapsed 8,200 years ago, or, at the extreme, could last as long as 1,000 years as they did during the Younger Dryas, which began about 12,700 years ago. In this report, as an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100-year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago. This abrupt change scenario is characterized by the following conditions: (*) Annual average temperatures drop by up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia and North America and 6 degrees Fahrenheit in northern Europe (*) Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa. (*) Drought persists for most of the decade in critical agricultural regions and in the water resource regions for major population centers in Europe and eastern North America. (*) Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impacts of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific experience enhanced winds. The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as: (1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production; (2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts; (3)Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess. As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor…”
“Storm over Pentagon climate scenario : Consultants present worst-case view: warming, then sudden cooling : Feb. 26, 2004 : A report commissioned by a Pentagon think tank is creating a storm of controversy — not because of any military scenarios but because of what it has to say about climate change. Environmentalists, and even European media, have jumped on the report as evidence that President Bush is out of touch with even his own experts. Bush withdrew the United States from U.N.-sponsored talks to implement a treaty to curb carbon dioxide and other emissions tied to warmer temperatures. Climate change skeptics say the report, subtitled “Imagining the Unthinkable,” is nothing new and purely speculative. The Pentagon think tank, for its part, paid $100,000 for the report but said it was not satisfied and would not forward it to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The report’s authors said their scenario was “not implausible” and would challenge U.S. national security in ways that should be considered immediately. “This report suggests that because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change — although uncertain and quite possibly small — should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern,” they wrote. But following all of the controversy, the authors’ consulting firm, Global Business Network, stated on its Web site that that the report offered a worst-case scenario, not a prediction. “As is customary in military and defense-related projects, the authors describe a worst case scenario (not a prediction) for abrupt climate change,” the company said. “They note that ‘the purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable—to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on national security.’ Contrary to some recent media coverage, the report was not secret, suppressed, or predictive.” So what’s in the report that created the controversy? The worst-case scenario is that global warming is approaching a threshold beyond which a sudden cooling will set in. That kind of climate event is believed to have happened 8,200 years ago and lasted for 100 years. The authors suggest a number of dire consequences in a scenario in which the current period of global warming ends in 2010, followed by a period of abrupt cooling. Some examples: (*) As temperatures rise during this decade, some regions experience severe storms and flooding. In 2007, surging seas break through levees in the Netherlands, making the Hague “unlivable.” (*) By 2020, after a decade of cooling, Europe’s climate becomes “more like Siberia’s.” (*) “Mega-droughts” hit southern China and northern Europe around 2010 and last 10 years. (*) In the United States, agricultural areas suffer from soil loss due to higher winds and drier climate, but the country survives the economic disruption without catastrophic losses. (*) Widespread famine in China triggers chaos, and “a cold and hungry China peers jealously” at Russia’s energy resources. In the 2020-2030 period, civil war and border wars break out in China. (*) “Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.” In a “world of warring states,” more countries develop nuclear weapons, including Japan, South Korea, Germany, Iran and Egypt. The Pentagon official who commissioned the study, Andrew Marshall, issued a brief statement saying it “reflects the limits of scientific models and information when it comes to predicting the effects of abrupt global warming. … Much of what this study predicts is still speculation.” Marshall, head of a Pentagon think tank known as the Office of Net Assessments, said his intent was to explore the question of whether countries affected by rapid climate change would suffer or benefit, and whether the change would make them more or less stable. “More pragmatically, what kinds of climate change might our worldwide forces encounter in the future?” Marshall said. A spokesman for Marshall, Lt. Cmdr. Daniel Hetlage, said the report did not fully satisfy Marshall’s needs. As a result, the report, commissioned last October and finished earlier this month, will not be passed along to Rumsfeld.”
“Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us : Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war : Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years : Threat to the world is greater than terrorism : Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York : The Observer, Sunday 22 February 2004 : Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. ‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,’ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’ The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority. The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions…”
“Key findings of the Pentagon : The Observer, Sunday 22 February 2004 : Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honour : By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south : Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia : Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope : Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia : Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk : A ‘significant drop’ in the planet’s ability to sustain its present population will become apparent over the next 20 years : Rich areas like the US and Europe would become ‘virtual fortresses’ to prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops. Waves of boatpeople pose significant problems…By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an ‘economic nuisance’ as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers : More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk : Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa : Mega-droughts affect the world’s major breadbaskets, including America’s Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss : China’s huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies.
The Pentagon 2009
“Report: Climate Change Could Warrant U.S. Military Action
Crises such as drought, violent storms, mass migration and pandemics could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, the New York Times reported : FOXNews.com : Sunday, August 09, 2009 : Climate change will pose profound challenges to the United States in the coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with its effects, The New York Times reported, citing military and intelligence analysts. Crises such as drought, violent storms, mass migration and pandemics could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions. The Times reported that for the first time, intelligence agencies and the Pentagon are taking a hard look at the possible security implications resulting from climate change. In particular, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could call for U.S. military response. The U.S. military also faces a direct challenge with climate change, the Times reported, because many of its installations are vulnerable to storm surges and rising seas and plans to protect naval stations in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego, Calif., are already underway. “The sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office,” said Peter Ogden, chief of staff to Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate negotiator. A U.S. government study of glaciers released Thursday said climate change is melting America’s glaciers at the fastest rate in recorded history, exposing the country to higher risks of drought and rising sea levels. “The observations show that the melt rate has definitely increased over the past 10 or 15 years,” Ed Josberger, a USGS scientist, said. “This certainly is a very strong indicator that climate change is occurring and its effects on glaciers are virtually worldwide.”
“Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security : By JOHN M. BRODER : Published: August 8, 2009 : WASHINGTON — The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say. The conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is partly a result of drought in Darfur. Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change. Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response. An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning. Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges. But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address. This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House. Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the legislation.
“Climate change excuse for US military intervention? : Sun, 09 Aug 2009 : Future climate change may force US military involvement abroad with Washington saying it has to intervene to defend power structures hardest hit by climate change. The aftereffects of the changes like wholesale population movements and pandemics would trigger conflicts that could dent local governments thus necessitating US military intervention, said the New York Times on Saturday quoting military and intelligence pundits. The interviewees raised concerns about ensuing ‘terrorist movements’ and regional destabilization. The daily said the changes could turn “sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia” to actual flashpoints. “The sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office,” said Peter Ogden, Chief of staff to Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate negotiator. “I’ve been making this argument for a number of years … , but it has not been a focus because a lot of people had not connected the dots,” said Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], a mainstream proponent of the US government’s attention on climate issues. He said the southern Sudan clashes had come about as a result of drought in Darfur saying, “That is going to be repeated many times over and on a much larger scale.” The issue began assuming center stage last year, when the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the New York senator at the time, and other congressmen underlined the strategic implications of climate change. At the same time, the National Intelligence Council, which produces the National Intelligence Estimate listing the reported threats to the US, assessed the supposed national security effects of the likely changes. “The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax US military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations,” the body said. Accordingly, the Defense Department envisioned a contingency plan including “sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”
“Climate Change as Security Threat Is Nothing New : Sun Aug 9, 2009 : By Joel Makower : A front-page story in Sunday’s New York Times proclaimed Climate Change Seen as a Threat to U.S. Security, describing how climate change could lead to “profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics.” The story noted that “Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.” The Times writers, like so many others, have short memories. This is hardly “the first time” the military has examined this topic. Nearly six years ago, two scenario planners prepared a report for the Department of Defense titled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security.” The report (download – PDF), by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall of the Global Business Network, a San Francisco-based think tank, explored how an acceleration of climate change “could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war.” It examined climate-induced constraints such as “food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production; decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patterns, causing more frequent floods and droughts; and disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess.” Concluded Schwartz and Randall: “As global and local carry capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations, especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.” Why the seemingly “new” interest by the Pentagon on climate? Perhaps because the price of inaction may be seen as hitting closer to home. It’s not just the vulnerable regions on other continents — sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, among others — that will suffer the consequences of climate change. It’s here on domestic soil. “A growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas, and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest,” reports the Times, adding: “If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.” It will be interesting to see whether and how the national security issue changes the tone in Washington as climate debates resume in September. If the national security crowd joins in on the side of prudent proactive measures to address America’s greenhouse gas emissions, it could accelerate the speed and scale of carbon regulation. And it will be interesting to see whether climate-action proponents — in business as well as activist, scientific, and political circles — latch on to the national-security thread as a potent argument for change. If there’s one thing that can trump the economy, stupid, it’s keeping America safe from the rest of the world.”
“Sunday, August 9, 2009 : The Manufactured “Climate Change As Security Threat” Meme : An article in the NY Times, Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security, deserves a special place in the annals of journalism in the service of liberal politics. The thrust of the article is that global climate change “could” cause massive geopolitical disruption in the next 20-30 years, so we need to pass John Kerry’s cap-and-tax bill in September…All of these hypothetical “could” happens would be derided as politicized fear mongering meant to push the Democratic agenda, if not for the fact that the Department of Defense included the projections in its security forecasts. If DoD thinks it’s important, it can’t be political, right? Wrong, read deeper into the article, and learn that the only reason that DoD included climate change in its projections is that Democratic politicians required it to do so…Climate change as national security threat is a completely manufactured crisis. Democrats forced the DoD to include climate change “what ifs” in its strategic projections, then use the fact that the DoD included the projections as proof of a crisis requiring passage of the cap-and-tax bill. I wonder what to call this?…”
“Pentagon warns of US military intervention in Mexico’s “war on drugs” : By Kevin Kearney : 9 February 2009 : The United States Joint Forces Command (USJFC), charged with anticipating global threats to US imperialism, issued a report last November entitled “Joint Operating Environment 2008 naming Pakistan and Mexico as the nations whose governments are most likely to undergo what it termed “rapid collapse.” This term goes largely undefined, beyond the assertion that it “usually comes as a surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute problems.” While Pakistan has been a key focus of US imperialism, subjected to an on-going military intervention for several years, Mexico’s mention seems unusual at first glance. The report concedes that while the possibility of a sudden collapse of the Mexican government is less likely than in Pakistan, “….the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state.” Ominously, the study concludes: “Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.” The immense implications of this statement become clear when one considers that the USJFC — one of the nine branches of the Department of Defense — controls nearly all conventional military forces based in the continental United States — a force of 1.6 million. By identifying possible “chaos” in Mexico as a threat to US homeland security, the study implies that direct military intervention is a distinct possibility. The report goes so far as to assert that every branch of the Mexican state is under threat of succumbing to the all-consuming influence of drug traffickers and may therefore require the direct oversight of the US military, giving some clue as to the scope of such an intervention. Closer examination reveals that the conclusions of the USJFC study are of a piece with US involvement in President Felipe Calderon’s two-year effort to brace for a mass political radicalization in Mexico by militarizing the country under the guise of a “war on drugs.” Calderon’s “war” on the long-standing and complex socio-economic problem of drug trafficking was launched on December 8, 2006. Far from a plan to curtail the drug trade or protect the people from violence, the operation consisted of little more than a mass deployment of military units across the country. To date, nearly 50,000 troops—including federal police—have been deployed with an official mandate to “use all necessary force.”…”
“Extract from the film : “Bowling for Columbine” by Michael Moore”
“Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace : Customer Review : Agree with it or not, a message we need to hear, March 25, 2002 : By Kerry Walters : Gore Vidal has been a pain in the establishment’s keester for fifty-odd years, and his gadflying has gotten sharper, pithier, and more valuable with the passing of each year. In this latest collection of essays, he dares to say something that many Americans are uneasily beginning to suspect but haven’t yet dared to utter out loud: the reason “they”–the terrorists–hate us “so much” is at least partly because we’re sometimes…well…hateable. Vidal’s *Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace* collects a handful of his recent essays ranging on topics from the presidential election of 2000, to homegrown terrorism a la Timothy McVeigh, to the moralizing conservatism of mainstream America, to an open letter to the FBI on whether McVeigh was acting alone. All of these pieces have been published previously, and indeed, some of them appeared in Vidal’s last collection of essays, *The Last Empire* (2001). What’s truly new and exciting about this book is its lead essay, hauntingly entitled “September 11, 2001 (A Tuesday)”. Vidal tells us in his Introduction that the piece was originally commissioned by “Vanity Fair,” but was refused publication because the editors thought it too inflammatory. Inflammatory it unquestionably is, because in it Vidal argues for a thesis that is unpopular at the moment but just may make more sense as time goes on: that horrible as the terrorist attacks on the Trade Towers was, the Bush administration’s high-handed wrestling to the ground of civil liberties in the attack’s wake is worse. Vidal argues that the waging of war by the “Pentagon junta” is but another example of the U.S.’s misguided tendency to “wage war to perpetuate peace”–a misbegotten policy that has earned the violent dislike of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh as well as the diplomatic disdain of much of the world. (At the end of the essay, Vidal provides an instructive 20-page account of U.S. military operations since 1949.) Vidal agrees that bin Laden needs to be brought to justice, but he argues that a police action, not all-out war, is the answer. The cowboy-style military campaign is only bound to make a bad situation worse. It may snuff out bin Laden (although even this isn’t guaranteed), but as is the way with military actions, will inevitably generate more anger and resentment. This book is bound to infuriate many American readers, even though I understand it’s been a best-seller in Europe. I’m not sure I agree with everything Vidal has to say. Occasionally he’s long on accusation and short on evidence. But the book deserves reading if for no other reason than it has the courage to ask us not to take for granted the virtue of our foreign policy in general and our reaction to terrorism in particular.”
“A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS by Dr. Zoltan Grossman : The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2009.”
“A Brief History of U.S. Interventions : 1945 to the Present : by William Blum : Z magazine , June 1999”
“America’s warmongering history full of wars, killing, and murdering…”