Well, 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.)
And 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.
Thus, 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.
The AmFasc Foreign and Defense Policy
Contrary 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 “Rebuilding 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 this view.
According 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.
And 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 States.
On page 17 of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” PNAC states:
“Although 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.”
With 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.
Shortly 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.
Hence, 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.
Neutering the AmFasc
The 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.
To 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 1991 war).
In 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.
While 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!
Thus, 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.
Deployed 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.
The 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.
Thus, 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!
Given 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.
The 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.
This 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.
Given 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.
Finally, 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.
All 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.
These 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.
I 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.
Well, 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.
Cutting 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 living!
March 24, 2003
Jim 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 the public.