Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 8, 2008
The Pentagon Does It All

The usually very well informed Swoop writes:

The next round of US-China Strategic Economic Dialogue taking place from June 17th-18th will air new concerns about China’s currency policy. At the same time attitudes in the Pentagon are hardening. At a speech in Singapore on May 31st Secretary of Defense Gates sharply criticized Chinese policy in the South China Sea. We understand he did this despite objections from the State Department. Further, the Pentagon has established what may be described as a “dirty tricks” unit charged with developing ideas for disrupting China. We do not believe that the White House has authorized any of these activities – which remain in the planning phase. But these indications point toward greater tension in US-China relations.

In the key judgement it adds:

However, the aftermath of the speech may have heightened tensions, with a senior Chinese general attacking US bilateral alliance relationships and missile defense policies as “undercutting the equilibrium of regional powers.” This has only boosted the Pentagon’s suspicions. A senior Pentagon officer told us “the Chinese have no idea how we can hurt them. We have not started yet.” Plans to encourage greater pliancy, we were told, include encouraging overseas Chinese to pull their investments out of the mainland.

Of course this is brain dead policy. There is absolutely no need for the U.S. to see China as a threat.

The real purpose of such politics is to put more taxpayer money into useless military super gadgets like the F-22 fighter. There is hardly any justification for the plane at all, but the Air Force and Lockheed want more. Therefore they invent a China threat.

The danger is that such stuff might eventually be used just because it is there. UN ambassador Madeleine Albright once asked then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, "What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?"

But an even bigger danger here is the role of the Pentagon as displayed above.

  • Gates talking against China despite objections from the State Departments. The Pentagon should be a tool of foreign policy, not the foreign policy maker.
  • The military planning "dirty tricks". That is definitely not the task of the military but the job of the CIA and other civil clandestine services.
  • A senior Pentagon officer talking about economic warfare issues like coerced divestment. Such measures are the job of the treasury.
  • All the above measures should be planed and coordinated by the National Security Council, not by the Pentagon.

Having multiple bureaucracies and power centers within a government is a feature, not a bug. It helps to avoid one sided, single minded decisions.

The trend over the years has been to put ever more tasks into the Pentagon or rather, the Pentagon robbing these roles from other agencies without any resistance from above. It is now playing NSC, State, Treasury and CIA on top of its original job.

Everybody should fear the future state this will lead to.

Comments

The danger is that such stuff might eventually be used just because it is there.

I am 110% in agreement with you here. One of my memories from my ASA post north of Lübeck was was this braindead lifer sargeant who creamed in his blow-out patched khakis when he got a “Davy Crockett” (a glorified shot-gun that could shoot grenades a few hundred meters) — he just had to go out and shoot the fugger off, simply because he had it.
True a small thing, in itself, but the point is, if you give little boys toys to play with, they will play with them. And some of these toys, well Gawd help us all!

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jun 8 2008 17:45 utc | 1

The tendency for the US military to take on more roles in national security is probably irreversible, and that means the power centers in it will be ever less controllable by civilians. (I think the firing of the AF secretary and chief of staff remains largely unexplained, especially why it was done so abruptly.)
It must be difficult for the US military, with all this additional power, to watch as the Chinese sit on their hands and their position gets stronger and stronger. But while they remain good at their primary capacity, blowing things up, there is every reason to believe that the move into other areas opens up the possibility of huge blunders. The US is truly in deep, deep shit.

Posted by: Dick Durata | Jun 8 2008 17:56 utc | 2

Kissinger first postulated the 3W was the greatest threat to G8 under Nixon.
“In 1974, Henry Kissinger, who essentially ran the Nixon Administration, issued National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), titled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests.” The report, adopted as official U.S. policy, argued that population growth in less-developed countries was a threat to U.S. security, because a growing population would more rapidly use up the resources which were needed in the advanced-sector nations.
NSSM 200 proposed limiting food production by force.”
The whole “Al Queda” thing (created by the CIA) simply derives from that premise.
Air Force planners postulated China is the greatest threat to G8 under Reagan.
Every western-society citizen should be required to read cover-to-cover their:
Warfare in 2020, and it’s latest metastasis, < href="http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/>AF 2025, which was since redacted, but might be available in WaybackMachine.
Full Spectrum Dominance(c). Total Control of Food & Energy. Humanity as Livestock.
I believe the Zionist word for it is “goyem”. We are their Palestine, all of US,
and best summarized in those immortal words of the Mercedes-driving Left Banker.
“We won, you lost. Get over it, and get the hell out of here!
It’s our land now.

Posted by: Hey Heh | Jun 8 2008 18:17 utc | 3

Cheney’s scapegoats?
As an old saying goes, “you sir are a liar and the truth is not in you”. In regards to R. Gates.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 8 2008 20:30 utc | 4

Addendum:
Then there is this,
Gates, Air Force Battle Over Robot Planes
Make of it what you will.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 8 2008 20:34 utc | 5

“include encouraging overseas Chinese to pull their investments out of the mainland”
Some people are too stupid to live. The minute this is done, China will just dump all its US assets, treasury bonds and the like, and the whole economy goes belly up, game over.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jun 8 2008 22:41 utc | 6

if they encourage US Chinese to pull mainland investments, the US Chinese will just transfer their ownership to commonwealth relatives, set up offshore holding corporations.
It’s funny, because forced divestiture sixty years ago is exactly why a lot of US Chinese came to the US, via HK or Taiwan.

Posted by: boxcar mike | Jun 9 2008 3:24 utc | 7

Gosh, the Chinese are building their economy, consuming more resources and offering goods and services on the world market at more reasonable prices than their competitors. No wonder they are perceived as a threat…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 9 2008 7:46 utc | 8

I fully agree with the points raised by b and the other
contributors to this thread. The increasing militarization of all aspects
of U.S. polity (often sold as “security issues”) is too obvious to ignore,
and, alas, probably too far advanced to reverse. We are just Cassandras
who can see the obvious trends, vaticinate about them, and know that
there’s precious little hope that these prophecies will be heeded. Not only is the controlling nexus of military, security, financial, and industrial too firmly in control to be separated from its federally financed feeding trough, but there is not even a voice for authentic change that can be heard above the clangor of fear-mongering electoral rhetoric from both parties. It has taken well over 100 years for this malignant growth to reach its present metastasis, so any hope of a cure must surely be a project requiring decades of unrelenting commitment to restoration of the health of the U.S. body politic. There are still vibrant antibodies animating the immune system, but it seems that the kind of constancy required to roll back the military-industrial-security
state (MIS-state, for short) is almost impossible to imagine: while the
hogs at the trough have every reason for alacrity and diligence in preserving their fodder, the vast public has far less concrete incentive and is much more easily distracted by the mediatic enablers of the metal-eaters. Indeed, it is, alas, all too easy to imagine that circumstances arising from missteps of the metaleaters (like $4.00 + per
gallon oil prices) will actually work to their advantage with an irate
electorate.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jun 9 2008 11:35 utc | 9

whether its the repugs or the dems, it’s always about how do we exploit and screw the chinese at the same time

Posted by: denk | Jun 9 2008 16:06 utc | 10

The thinking of Zheng Bijian, one of China’s leading academics, on the relations between China and the US – he is trying to be reassuring to the US policy makers. He has been published in “Foreign Affairs” as well.
China’s Peaceful Rise

Posted by: Owl | Jun 9 2008 22:03 utc | 11

Mike Ruppert described the basic situation over two years ago, and it is this:
The US has abandoned all long-range planning. As the US economic and strategic situation deteriorates, its leadership elites find they have backed themselves into a corner. Only some dramatic action will serve, and that, in one form or another, means war.
What form will the war take? There are a zillion ideas, and probably it is not settled. But all attention is now devoted to choosing the form, and in conducting it. This is all short range, but there is no long range. The US either dominates all the world’s resources and soon, or collapses permanently. So the war for resources consumes all thought. There is nothing beyond it. And this is why LOGICALLY all major US Government functions are moved to the Pentagon.
Aside from a bit of black ops, the CIA was mostly concerned with long-range strategy, and collecting information relevant to that strategy. There is no long range: Thus the CIA no longer has a function.
Domestic programs do not matter. Social functioning of the US as a political economy does not matter. Global warming certainly does not matter. ALL of these things lie beyond the horizon of the war, and hence are imponderable and irrelevant.
The US Government no longer has any other function but to conduct this war for resources, and no time frame beyond the war itself.
Hannah K. O’Luthon #8?–Cassandras, yes. What needs to be done is simple and obvious, but won’t be done. Everything follows from that–from the refusal to do the needful thing to avoid disaster. So instead the Fates will deliver the destruction that has been sought and requested of them.
This creates times in which anyone can be Cassandra. This is not much fun. Still, the small things one can do become very important. But they are, and remain, small. Nothing changes that now.

Posted by: Gaianne | Jun 10 2008 3:56 utc | 12

some one should ask the offense, er, i mean defence secretary , so who has been zooming whom mr gates ?

Posted by: denk | Jun 10 2008 5:46 utc | 13

well put, Gaianne. the “craziest” among us are feeling increasingly vindicated of that label. shrub, on his latest jaunt across the pond, gets to solidify euro ties and visit with rat again. Obomb disappears around the same time and place as the Bilderberg gathering of like-minded business folk meet and performs smashingly for aipac. doesn’t matter what actually transpires, only that perception of conspiracy/powerlessness is reinforced. we’re all ringing the bell of inevitability now. we are victims of our own observations tracking the audacity of greedmoneypower hungry corporate entities that must, by their drastic relation to the global hell of mass starvation, lack the limiting emotion we humans call empathy to breathe the same air we do.
this creates times in which anyone can be Cassandra…
couldn’t agree more. so as Cassandras let’s focus on how to package, linguistically, this information, so it’s digestible to those trapped in the tar pit of denial. let’s lube up some creative counter-memes to slip past the defenses and reprogram the objectified target of advertisers seeding minds with a destructive want any kid can understand is bad after reading THE LORAX.
it’s incredible how vulnerable the national psyche is right now. when i read letters to the editor in my local paper blaming environmentalists for stopping drilling in Alaska and other preservation efforts as a major factor in oil prices, i drop my jaw and shake my head. in a mad max future that’s no longer laughingly implausible, will these people be my new enemies?
what, ultimately, is the benefit of this kind of speculation? i don’t know. no one ever listened to Cassandra.

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 10 2008 6:40 utc | 14

@ Gaianne 12
Thanks for the comments. I’m not sure I complete agree with your view that “What needs to be done is simple and obvious”. It is certainly clear that the MIS-state is dysfunctional, illiberal, and downright dangerous for its citizens. However, mapping out an actionable long term program to wind it down to manageable proportions seems to be anything but easy.
I do fully agree that “the small things one can do become very important. [although] they are, and remain, small”, and I consider open discussion like this blog to be one of the crucial small things. It may well be that the entire concept of political action as traditional understood is not the way out of the impasse: perhaps we will witness some sort of gradual but global metanoia which resolves the contradictions posed by natioanlism and sectarianism. That seems hard to believe, yet
such “conversions” have taken place in the past: the rise of Christianity, of Islam, of parliamentary democracy, the Enlightenment, of Marxism and labor unions all radically changed existing power structures by redefining the accepted commonplaces and conventions of social intercourse. (Naturally, a cynic would have no difficulty in saying “a plague of all your houses” with regard to the tangible effects produced by these psychic revolutions.) The interplay between the exigencies of a new sensibility and the norms of existing institutions is bound to be complicated, contrasted, and contradictory, but perhaps some global consensus regarding minimal norms of humanity and justice will arise from the confusion. Indeed, they have already been proclaimed and
codified in international law (e.g. the Geneva accords), but up to now (and especially in the recent American past) the “false consciousness” of religio-patriotic exceptionalism has emptied them of their content. The conflict between individual conscience and the strictures imposed by “state religion” is a recurring theme in Western culture, from Antigone through the Reformation and up to red-baiting and persecution of anti-party or other “heretical” elements in modern times. The problem of reconciling the rival claims of conscience and economic efficiency will surely have no final solution, but rather only partial and more or less successful approaches.
Although I would like to think that we here are acting and writing in consonance with this nebulous project, I am acutely aware of my own hypocrisy (or inner contradiction): philosophically I tend toward humanistic anarchism, but my working career has always been subsidized by Leviathan.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jun 10 2008 7:11 utc | 15

do not ask i’ve lost and cannot see
whatever childhood password set me free
and even though the glimmer in me knows
i prefer the emperor in his clothes

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 10 2008 7:15 utc | 16

and now the styling of thought
is so erroneously channeled
we might as well be robots
bathed in bright enamel
we might as well give in
the conventional thinking goes
and use our minds to imagine
the emperor in his clothes

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 10 2008 7:20 utc | 17