Wednesday, May 14, 2014
The U.S. government, in conspiracy with client states, chiefest among them the Five Eyes—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—have inflicted upon the world a system of secret, pervasive surveillance from which there is no refuge. They protect their domestic systems from the oversight of citizenry through classification and lies, and shield themselves from outrage in the event of leaks by overemphasizing limited protections they choose to grant the governed.- Ed Snowden
. . . - See more at: http://glenngreenwald.net/#BookDocuments
"These men, largely private, were functioning on a level different from the foreign policy of the United States, and years later when New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan read through the entire documentary history of the war, that history known as the Pentagon Papers, he would come away with one impression above all, which was that the government of the United States was not what he had thought it was; it was as if there were an inner U.S. government, what he called 'a centralized state, far more powerful than anything else, for whom the enemy is not simply the Communists but everything else, its own press, its own judiciary, its own Congress, foreign and friendly governments - all these are potentially antagonistic. It had survived and perpetuated itself,' Sheehan continued, 'often using the issue of anti-Communism as a weapon against the other branches of government and the press, and finally, it does not function necessarily for the benefit of the Republic but rather for its own ends, its own perpetuation; it has its own codes which are quite different from public codes. Secrecy was a way of protecting itself, not so much from threats by foreign governments but from detection from its own population on charges of its own competence and wisdom.' Each succeeding Administration, Sheehan noted, was careful, once in office, not to expose the weaknesses of its predecessor. After all, essentially the same people were running the governments, they had continuity to each other, and each succeeding Administration found itself faced with virtually the same enemies. Thus the national security apparatus kept its continuity, and every outgoing President tended to rally to the side of the incumbent President.
"Out of this of course came a willingness to use covert operations; it was a necessity of the times, to match the Communists, and what your own population and your own Congress did not know was not particularly important; it was almost better if they did not know..."
The Best and The Brightest
Friday, May 9, 2014
Monday, May 5, 2014
Saturday, May 3, 2014
A Global Force For a Global Peace™
From the Desk of the CEO
Many of you will recall dark days when we failed to get the contract to invade Iraq. In hindsight, which is 20/20, our success in Afghanistan caused us not to keep our eye on the ball which we dropped when we stepped up to the plate. Lessons learned.
Subsequently of course, we dragged out the Afghanistan mission in a satisfactory way for all concerned. Soldiers were deployed, people killed, missions flown, munitions expended, opium grown, and money made. It's the essence of NATO.
The Libya contract was another matter. Although successful by the standards of Afghanistan, the whole chain of command thing was weird. It was a gong show. Nobody knew what the plan was because there was no plan. Also, there was the whole legal business about what was and was not authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which superseded Resolution 1970, and it was awkward. The Afghanistan thing used NATO Charter Article 5 to justify the invasion in self defence, but that would never have flown in Libya. Actually Libya was a "no-fly" zone. Haha. That's a little NATO humour.
And of course there was the whole Egyptian confusion. Luckily, we didn't have to bomb, we only had to sell the military weapons that could terrorize the population who were intent on self determination, even if that meant the Muslim Brotherhood formed a government. Democracy is one thing, electing a dangerous radical is another. Ask Hamas.
Then there was Syria. I don't like to use this language with employees, but it was a cluster-fuck. It was unhinged. Rather than speaking with a single voice, NATO descended into mission-babble that - instead of developing a decent bombing campaign that has never worked for anybody except NATO and its corporate partners - was stillborn in the most awkward possible circumstances. NATO client states tried to exercise self-determination. The result: blue balls.
Fortunately, the Ukraine disaster has presented itself. Although to some extent manufactured by our Public Affairs Department, it has all the ingredients of a good old fashioned tank battle on the Steppes that lacks only cavalry. It's what we do.
Stalingrad will be ours.