Heute Iraq, Morgen Die Welt!!
Jim Grichar (aka Exx-Gman)
the neo-conservatives really American fascists or AmFasc have gotten their wish; they have gotten George Bush to drag the
U.S. into their war, the public rationale being to liberate
Iraq and bring democracy to it. (Apparently, Woodrow Wilson,
Franklin Roosevelt and even Ronald Reagan failed to make the world
safe for democracy.)
why do I characterize them as American Fascists, or AmFasc?
First of all, they are economic and political socialists, meaning
that they want the federal government to dictate how the average
Joe and Jane and their children live. In addition, they essentially
support the notion of an increasingly powerful presidency, that
is, a president who can do what he wants and ignore the Constitution
and the separation of powers, especially with regard to starting
wars. The AmFasc articulate foreign policy goals for the U.S., with
the stated goal of spreading democracy by making war on those countries
under dictatorship or monarchy. In fact, those goals have nothing
to do with the constitutional function of defending these United
States from foreign enemies. With increasing frequency and rancor,
the AmFasc many of whom appear to have graduated from the Joe
Goebbels school of propagandistic journalism, are smearing paleo-conservatives
and paleo-libertarians for their principled opposition to the war
on Iraq. They imply that paleo-conservatives and paleo-libertarians
are unpatriotic when, in fact, neither paleo-conservatives nor paleo-libertarians
have done or said anything to harm our troops overseas. In fact,
the AmFasc are unpatriotic, as they seek to destroy our constitution
by usurping our rights to life, liberty and property.
when you couple this philosophy of the pursuit of national greatness
by spreading democracy via war along with increasing socialism
and regimentation domestically, it makes sense to call them the
AmFasc. And the motto of this group might as well be Heute Iraq,
Morgen Die Welt! Translated from German, this means Today
Iraq, Tomorrow the World.
AmFasc Foreign and Defense Policy
to this cover story about spreading democracy that the AmFasc have
fed to the media, the U.S. attack on Iraq was really designed and
articulated several years ago by a number of AmFasc, either unaffiliated
or in groups. In any case, the ideas and recommendations are essentially
the same, regardless of the author or proponent. One such group,
the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in a report entitled
America's Defenses," delineated a frightening policy of imperialism
for the U.S., all cloaked under the veil of spreading democracy
throughout the world. The list of those endorsing the PNAC's activities
and PNAC's leading lights almost reads like a who's who of AmFasc.
Other AmFasc, in different venues, have essentially subscribed to
to the PNAC branch of the AmFasc, the overall goal for the U.S.
should be to preserve and enhance U.S. military superiority and
extend U.S. dominance around the planet, deterring the emergence
of any potential new superpower. One does not have to be a genius
to see that the AmFasc goal is to make the United States the modern-day
equivalent of the Roman Empire or Hitler's 1,000-year Reich.
the real goal of the U.S. war on Iraq is to secure a permanent military
base to dominate the region, thus giving the U.S. effective control
over the Middle East oil fields. If George Bush follows the advice
of AmFasc both within and outside of his administration, he will
subsequently launch attacks on such nations as Syria, Iran, and
Libya and help topple regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Such actions
appear to be a de facto U.S. attack on Israel's enemies and would
in all likelihood stir up Islamic terrorists to attack the United
page 17 of "Rebuilding America's Defenses," PNAC states:
Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the
Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent
that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective,
the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from
the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat
to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S. Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the
region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy
given the longstanding American interests in the region."
the bombing of U.S. military facilities in Saudi Arabia (by al Qaeda?)
in the 1990's, and with the recent allegations of Saudi royal family
funding of the 9/11 terrorists and Saudi reluctance to back a U.S.
attack on Iraq, it became apparent that the United States would
have increasing difficulty maintaining its use of Saudi Arabia and possibly even Kuwait as a land base for dominating the Persian
Gulf oil fields.
after 9/11, there was speculation that the U.S. could instead gain
access to large oil supplies from the former Soviet Union's central
Asian republics by building pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan
to the Arabian Sea. But Afghanistan being the snake pit that it
is even after more than a year of fighting to clean out the
Taliban and al Qaeda and Pakistan being a nuclear power with
a love-hate relationship with the U.S., that pipe dream, which would
involve setting up some sort of permanent U.S. military base or
bases, just could not be realized.
the AmFasc decided that Saddam and Iraq being the easy targets
that they are were the best way to achieve this part of their
vision of the U.S. empire, or Pax Americana as the PNAC
AmFasc refer to it.
AmFasc have a serious vulnerability, and that is their need for
continued massive and growing U.S. military expenditures and overseas
deployments of U.S. forces, and this can only be made possible by
continuing to con a gullible public into believing that such actions
somehow are necessary for U.S. national security. If
Joe and Jane Q. Public can be shown that they are going to be bled
financially to fund AmFasc's imperial ambitions and that implementing
AmFasc's agenda will not make them more secure, the AmFasc scam
will be over.
achieve their goals, AmFasc needs a very large U.S. Navy, with at
least the current twelve aircraft carriers deployed in what are
known as aircraft carrier battle groups. Without the six carrier
battle groups deployed to the Persian Gulf region, the U.S. could
not have attacked Iraq as it had, initially, no significant access
to land air bases in the Persian Gulf (the Saudis would not let
us use the massive Prince Sultan air base that was used during the
all likelihood, the U.S. and Britain will win the initial war in
Iraq, finishing off Saddam and his close cronies, and the U.S.,
possibly with British armed forces, will probably set up a permanent
military base or bases in Iraq for the next 3050 years.
the AmFasc will tout this as a major victory, this can be turned
against them in the longer term. Since the U.S. ability to deter
other wars has apparently not been harmed by deploying six carrier
battle groups to the Persian Gulf for this latest war on Iraq, once
we win that war we should no longer need these six carrier groups!
the U.S. needs to scrap at least six of the U.S.'s twelve aircraft
carriers and the associated ships that accompany it in what is called
an aircraft carrier battle group.
in a battle group composed of one aircraft carrier, two cruisers,
one destroyer, and one nuclear attack submarine, the aircraft carrier
is a costly and highly aggressive offensive weapon. Based upon replacement
cost value, the aforementioned carrier battle group costs nearly
$9 billion $4.5 billion for the aircraft carrier, about $1 billion
each for the cruisers, about 0.5 billion for a destroyer, and $1.65
billion for a nuclear attack submarine. There are two new carriers
currently planned. One, named after Ronald Reagan, is under construction,
and another is due to be started in the future. The one that has
not been started should be cancelled as well.
operating costs of a carrier battle group are also staggering. While
figures on actual operating costs are difficult to get, one can
make an educated guess. By using some reasonable assumptions
especially by assigning all support ship and other support costs
to the cost of the warships and applying this and other assumptions
to the information published by the Office of Management and Budget
in the recently proposed fiscal year 2004 budget, I estimated that
it costs about $34 billion per year to operate an aircraft
carrier battle group. And that is during peacetime operations. During
a war, conventional fuel costs, additional maintenance, additional
munitions purchases and possible losses of aircraft add substantially
to these totals.
scrapping six carrier battle groups could save $1824 billion
per year in operating costs and billions more in that these six
carrier battle groups would not have to be replaced at a current
cost of $54 billion in future years. But even more important, these
weapons would not be available to the AmFasc to start new wars!
all the trouble we had with France and Germany, it should now be
much easier to convince the American public that the United States
should pull out of NATO altogether. A relic of the Cold War, NATO
has been kept alive by the AmFasc to keep U.S. troops deployed overseas
and thus make it easier to send them into various overseas conflicts.
The U.S. still has over 70,000 troops in Europe, including those
participating in the so-called peace-keeping missions in Bosnia
and Kosovo (some of these 70,000 were undoubtedly deployed to the
Middle East). Ending U.S. membership in NATO will end U.S. defense
subsidies of Europe. The Europeans are wealthy enough to pay for
their own defense. And most of those countries would probably like
to see the U.S. military leave after more than 50 years in Europe.
This move would save additional billions annually, and keep us from
getting involved in squabbles that are none of our business.
United States needs to pull its troops out of South Korea and end
its defense guarantee of South Korea, as supported by Congressman
Ron Paul of Texas in House Concurrent Resolution 46. U.S. troops
stationed there are merely a trip wire for the U.S. use of nuclear
weapons against the North in case Kim Jong-Il decides to attack
the South. Even if Kim has nuclear weapons, the South Koreans are
wealthy enough to provide for their own defense, and, if they do
not wish to do so, then they can make their peace with Kim and live
under his harsh rule.
move would also save billions up front and also eliminate the need
for heavy lift aircraft and ships to take troops and their equipment
to far-flung battle fields. In addition, it would eliminate the
need for any Southeast Asian U.S. military bases like the ones proposed
by the AmFasc in the PNAC report.
the widespread public dissatisfaction with the United Nations, now
is the time for Americans to voice their support for Congressman
Ron Paul's bill, H.R. 1146, which would end U.S. membership in the
United Nations. In addition, Americans should write their Congressmen
and Senators to urge them to end all U.S. foreign aid, which is
only a tool used by the AmFasc to secure military basing rights
and other foreign acquiescence in their desire for a U.S. worldwide
empire. This would probably save $15 billion or more per year.
contrary to the recommendations in PNAC's report, the Congress should
not raise authorized
troop strength to 1.6 million from 1.4 million and any attempt to
restore the military draft should be vigorously opposed. With the
cuts I suggested, troop strength does not have to be increased;
it can be cut further. And there is not now, nor would there be,
a need for restoration of the military draft.
these defense cuts would allow the U.S. to redesign its military
force structure to provide for the defense of the United States,
a move that would save additional billions of dollars. And all of
these savings probably more than $100 billion per year would
release scarce resources for productive use in the private sector,
adding to private wealth and personal well-being.
moves, in part or in whole, would help to neuter the AmFasc imperialists
and set the United States on a course of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
can hear the crying and gnashing of teeth by the AmFasc right now.
And I can also hear them cranking up their smear machine, trying
to brand LRC writers and readers as being unpatriotic.
a patriot loves his country and would do nothing to harm it. These
AmFasc schlock-meisters are the ones who are unpatriotic. They want
to squander, recklessly, our people, our treasure and accumulated
international good will towards the United States on their crazy
schemes of national greatness.
the defense budget, ending overseas commitments of U.S. forces and
foreign aid, and ending U.S. membership in the United Nations would
neuter the AmFasc. They would then have to go out and earn an honest
Grichar (aka Exx-Gman) [send
him mail], formerly an economist with the federal government,
writes to "un-spin" the federal government's attempt to con
© 2003 LewRockwell.com