A Dog’s Breakfast

Doug Casey recently described what’s happening in the Middle East as a dog’s breakfast. A muddle, a mess. President Biden is himself a dog’s breakfast in human form, and while Biden is never clear nor coherent, the modern pattern of US policy may be.

The US government, and its military industrial complex sponsors – who own much of the media, and who, along with the rest of the media, are owned by Blackrock and Vanguard – wants mass subsidy of the US arms industry, and to sell those mostly debt-funded arms everywhere at a big mark-up.

Building a border wall, whether with construction materials or security sensors, is a low margin activity, and once in place, the updating and repair contracts are not lucrative, in the way that government-subsidized weapons systems and ammunition with associated spending and endless training, and with continuous upgrades and cost overruns – this is where the real money is.

Pursuant to this compelling interest, the USG and its cronies in certain industries – and their bought-and-paid-for Congressmen and Senators – must create customers, and they need customers whose checks don’t bounce, those who can “owe” the US their commercial loyalty.  This is the function of NATO, and NATO expansion, it is the purpose of the Ukraine proxy war, and it is the purpose of the current knee-jerk policy alignment with the hard right in Israel.

It only looks like a dog’s breakfast.  We see that US policy supports and subsidizes neo-Nazi groups and policies in Ukraine, applauds a “democracy” that seizes and shuts down churches, bans opposition political parties, and imprisons American journalists for doing their job.  We say, well, that’s confusing.  But creating a “new Israel” in Ukraine – a territory wholly “owned” by the US in the aftermath of a damaging and fruitless Ukrainian war effort that decimated its productive population, a territory to be developed by the US and NATO as a modern warfare and weapons testing ground against Russia and the BRICS – this fits nicely with the compelling interest of the US government.  Denying Europe anyone else’s natural gas is also a big winner, and consistent with the rest of US policy there.

We see the US diverting the USS Gerald Ford battle group to the eastern Med, and sending the Eisenhower battle group to join up, in the name of “defending Israel” from Hamas in the south, and Hizbollah and any supportive Arabs or Persians east of Israel as it proceeds to clear Gaza once and for all.  This US response is accompanied by its UNSC veto of any ceasefire – and the concurrent DC consensus that any talk of peace, ceasefire of humanitarian concerns of Gazans is strictly verboten.  We see the US rushing to participate in a mass bombing campaign against people who are largely unarmed themselves, and have, by definition, only a terrorist army to defend them. It would seem that the US, rather than being a city on a hill, or a model of liberty, instead stands against our own founding mythology, against the Geneva Conventions, against humanity, and always for more war, mayhem, and mass murder.

We see another alarming trend.  US policy – not accidental, not due to incompetence or lack of oversight – US policy is to place all Americans in harm’s way.  Borders and urban areas are not defended at home, “allies” are unreliable, US military activities and bases are scattered in 800 or more locations around the world, and we are increasingly disliked – for our hypocrisy, our demands for more war, our refusal to work for peace, and our denial of the efforts by others to do so.  The US government is actually hated for its passive and active aggression, its nearly constant lies – at home and abroad.

We blame a popular neoconservative influence for much of our foreign policy, for the past thirty years at least.  Neoconservatives constitute a reflexively Zionist fifth column in Washington, and throughout US state media – on this topic there can be no debate, nor is there any evidence to the contrary.  But why is neoconservatism such a persistent approach in Washington? It produces only conflict, is extremely expensive, and it is unpopular among the overwhelming majority of Americans, voters and nonvoters alike.  The answer is that, unlike a dog’s breakfast, neoconservatism orders and gives meaning to the martial state, feeds and soothes its largest export industry.  For several decades, it has been politically able to generate city, congressional and senatorial elections of its adherents, and to politically challenge and debase all those who oppose it.

The lack of internal US security – whether it is local disorder or a porous border – serves both horns of neoconservatism – appearing to welcome those seeking a prosperity and liberty while facilitating increased growth of state domestic surveillance and increasing demands for national policing.  Keeping domestic satisfaction low and anxiety high is extremely useful to a neoconservative state – because, the people must never forget how much they need their rulers, and the king’s army.

There is another aspect of US foreign policy, which is to say, a policy of conflict-seeking and aggression – especially creating conflicts where we enjoy the benefit of having the other poor bastard die for their country, and our interests.  A foreign policy of conflict-seeking and aggression – while invariably typical of an empire in its final stages of dissolution – also accelerates that dissolution.

It is said that the neoconservatives who devise US policy, at home and abroad, are chickenhawks. They’ve never served in an American military unit, and never worn an American military uniform – yet they imagine, because they watched the movie Patton a time or two, that they can figure it out.  George C. Scott says “Americans traditionally love to fight….,” an extraordinary Hollywood over-simplification.  To base one’s entire foreign policy on this assumption  –  to believe that Americans will fight for empire, for an incompetent and bankrupt government, or lawless and cowardly politicos on demand – is arrogant and deadly.

When we recall what our government has done in the name of rousing the American population for war in the past – we see covert and overt creation of US vulnerability to attack (check), facilitation of false flag attacks (check) and a military machine that is anxious to prove itself (check).  Consider this:  A weak and disliked Democratic President, seeking deeper involvement in an unpopular and expensive no-winning-option war halfway around the world – stop me if you’ve heard this one – simultaneously experienced an incident with a hyper-militarized expansionist Israel, when Israel repeatedly attacked, from sea and air, the USS Liberty surveillance and intelligence vessel in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Israel, killing 31 US crewmen, and wounding 171 others, and then both governments lied about it.

Today we have the same scenario in play – but senile Joe is no LBJ, and except for contractors, volunteers, and mercs, no acknowledged American soldiers are fighting in Ukraine.  In fact, it’s the best money we ever spent, to the last Ukrainian, says a typical Senator.  Today, Israel is a nuclear power, and we’ll soon have a quarter of the US fleet sitting duck-like off the coast of Israel, in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, potential targets of most of the rest of the world.

As world opinion and world leaders call for peace, patience and change, another USS Liberty-style incident might be just what the US deep state needs.  Only this time, how could we determine which of many nations and tribes were behind it?  Few countries remain where the US has not, at some time, alienated and starved them, interfered with their internal affairs, killed or imprisoned their children. Perhaps more frightening, some of America’s worst enemies live in our nation’s capital, and advise our senile President, as he publicly, shamefully hallunicates.