11. Ending Perpetual War for Profit

[The 99 Declaration]

Recalling all military personnel at all non-essential bases including but not limited to the Cold War era deployments in Europe, South Korea, Japan, Australia and Cuba and refocusing national defense goals to address threats posed by the geopolitics of the 21st century. A new treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons so complete nuclear disarmament may be achieved by 2020 or sooner. Congress shall pass new legislation to reinvigorate the War Powers Resolution to limit the deployment of military forces to those instances where Congressional approval has been granted. New laws must be enacted to counter the Military Industrial Complex’s mission of perpetual war for profit. The United States has engaged in war after war only to later to discover that the pretexts relied upon to enter these wars were false or exaggerated. The goal of war in a corporate controlled state is to generate profit for the Military Industrial Complex and other industries and individuals who benefit directly and indirectly when humans kill one another. The annual savings created by updating our military posture and ending perpetual war for profit will be applied to the jobs and social programs outlined herein.



“To understand the nature of the present war – for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war – one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. . . It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.” -George Orwell, 1984.

[christophercarney]

This is tied directly to central banking, aka the Federal Reserve. Not sure if it makes sense to combine them but as far as cause-and-effect goes, these go hand in hand.

The reason we have perpetual war for profit, or just perpetual war in general, is because we no longer HAVE TO PAY for them, due to a central bank which can create the money at will to give to the politicians to satiate their needs.

Ever since 1913, we can now wage war on any nation or nation-state in the world without raising taxes. Of course, we will all pay for it through inflation later, but the politicians count on the people not catching on until it's too late.

Anyone ever wonder why most of our wars of aggression have been in the 20th century and beyond? It is no coincidence, the Federal Reserve Act war ratified by Congress in 1913, just in time to enter WWI.

Take away the power to print, and you end the perpetual war for profit. It is that simple.

[amadeus]

I don't agree with recalling ALL of the troops from foreign bases for two reasons.

First, it serves as an educational forum for an American to be immersed in a completely different culture. It is a mind expanding experience that will serve our country when that veteran comes home and explains how they do things "over there" and we realize that we one, never heard a thing about it from our media, and two, are getting ripped off once again by capitalists.

Second, if a REAL war should ever break out, we would at least have a defended landing zone where we could drop troops, or disrupt the take off of an invading force that was headed for us. The last war that was fought within this country with a foreign enemy, was two hundred years ago when the last of the indigenous tribes surrendered. The next one will be a doozy!

[forbesmb]

I have to agree with amdeus.

First, let's take into account the money spent to build and improve bases/camps/etc. for the troops in another country. We spent money to put them there... if you recall everyone, you're either going to have to just leave everything behind or spend more money to dismantle it.

Second, from my experience as a veteran and spending a year in South Korea, the culture immersion is an experience you just can't equate to any other learning experience. Do all soldiers get involved with the local culture? No, but many do. Hell, I spent a few weekends going to the homes of some of the KATUSAs (Korean Augmentees to the U.S. Army) with whom I worked.

Third, those bases serve a purpose. In South Korea, our stationed forces are meant as a delaying force to bolster the South Korean forces and buy time until further reinforcements could arrive, should North Korea decide to invade. It's not classified information... the more northern bases and camps are delay points and the more southern ones are landing and staging points. I'd imagine the strategic setup in other countries is similar.

Should we no longer have a large occupation force? Certainly, I can agree with that; however, I do not believe we should completely abandon any region to which we are currently deployed.

[christophercarney]

I guess I am the only extreme one here (thus far), but I say we have no business nor have we ever had any business occupying other countries. Bases in 162 countries, really? Is all that really necessary?

How would you feel if Iran had a "small" base in Charleston, SC. Of if North Korea had one in Tallahassee, or China one just 100 miles outside of NYC?

Who gave us the authority to be the world's policeman? Nobody.

But you see, you've already made the persuasive and effective argument that since we're already there, it would be advantageous to continue to use those bases, plus it would cost a lot to dismantle them and bring the personnel home. And that is quite an effective argument. And also quite convenient.

The entire discussion is probably just academic however, since the day is fast approaching when we won't be able to afford all those bases and camps. It will be forced upon us.

[forbesmb]

It's not a matter of being the only extreme one, Christopher.

As a veteran, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around a removal of all troops, bases, and property, as I still see a measure of merit in them.

As for policing the world, I agree it's a growing problem, one that stretches our military too thin and involves us in wars in which we really have no adequate reason to be. I believe NATO and the UN both feed into that, as any push to protect the basic human rights within another nation usually involves the "super powers", of which the U.S. is one.

Personally, I'd rather we continue to maintain a show of force... or, as Teddy Roosevelt wrote, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." No new wars, no new bases built... just a preventative presence in those we already have.

Eventually, sure, maybe we can try to bring everyone home; however, I don't see that as a priority at this time.

[christophercarney]

"No new wars, no new bases built... just a preventative presence in those we already have."

I can definitely get behind the first half of that sentence. I would be willing to put off ending the second half until we have gained traction on the other front, as I recognize bringing everyone home would be an enormous effort, but still worthwhile in my mind.

Ideally it would be nice to attach a timeline with specific criteria and milestones, say over a 20 year period. Something like "Close half the bases by 2025, and another half again by 2035", or something to that effect.

There is just way too much evidence that our "being in everyone's business" is not helping with anything, namely foreign relations and the fight against radical fundamentalism. Last time I checked that was called imperialism.

But as you say, that specifically might not be a priority at this time. Faced with everything else we need to fix, you may be right.

[forbesmb]

Now, a twenty year period, that I can support. Too many people want it done now and it's simply not that easily accomplished. A slow withdrawal from all U.S. "territory" in other regions would be preferable to the "bring everyone home immediately" mentality I have often found.

We also have to consider that some of those regions in which we are "entrenched", for lack of a better term, prefer to have the military present. I would almost suggest part of the long-term goal being to remove ourselves from those regions that no longer wish to have our presence, but maintain one where we have been asked to remain.

I agree with you on the imperialism impression and we're not the only nation guilty of operating under those guidelines.

As for the priority, allow me to clarify. I believe quite a few of our grievances could be fixed if we could provide a viable solution to the corporate/special interest influence in politics. Take the profit out of war and we'll be less likely to become involved in another resource rich region. We have a few grievances that, if those problems were to be fixed, many other issues would be more readily solved in the aftermath.