California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Should we Have a Second Pentagon ... Devoted to Peace?

by John Lawrence

So we have a Pentagon of War. We should have an equally funded Pentagon of Peace, a huge 5-sided building where all they do is plan and seek to implement various peace scenarios. Unimaginable? That's because the human race has so little imagination, and the result is ... continuous warfare since the dawn of civilization and before including the wiping out of another species, the Neanderthals, by our species, homo sapiens. The history of the human race is one of war with some technological progress in the interstices. Let's face it. Human beings especially of the masculine variety get off on war. Most warmongers are completely bored by peace. They can't wait to get back into action and cover themselves in glory on the battlefield, to prove their mettle, to prove their masculinity. Right now the US spends close to a trillion dollars a year on war, the weapons of war and planning for war. We spend a pittance on peace, the implementation of peace and planning for peace. As a result the human race has been heading for some time to Mutually Assured Destruction. We will probably get there whether or not it happens by means of a nuclear holocaust or whether it happens by neglect of the things that need to be done to forestall climate change.

The war in Ukraine and the looming Cold (and maybe even Hot) War between the two sides that are lining up represents at least a dithering while the planet heats up and eventually burns becoming a Venus like uninhabitable hellscape. So we have the US and Europe on one side and Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea on the other. Of the not quite aligned nations, most of Africa is siding with the Chinese. Why? Because the Chinese have put great energy into developing African infrastructure with their Belt and Road initiative. The US on the other hand has put great energy into building military bases all around the world. "There are roughly 750 US foreign military bases; they are spread across 80 nations! After the U.S is the UK, but they only have 145 bases. Russia has about 3 dozen bases, and China just five. This implies that the U.S has three times as many bases as all other countries combined." So this goes to show the relative priorities of the various countries. The priorities of peace vs the priorities of war. Helping improve the economies of other people directly is something that the Pentagon of Peace should be about. Sad to say China did that first, but there's always hope. As my Dad used to say, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Sure China's goal was to make friends and influence people with its Belt and Road initiative. What's the US doing in the meantime ... building military bases.

The Peace Pentagon should have a budget equal to the War Pentagon's budget - roughly a trillion dollars. I'm not saying do away with the Department of War and become defenseless. No, keep a robust defense but counterbalance it with a robust Department of Peace. So if possible peace initiatives will carry the day, but, if worse comes to worse, well there's always the fantastic array of weapons of war that the US already possesses. The war capabilities are enormous. The peace capabilities are meager. There's a difference between pursuing our interests by becoming friends with other people and pursuing our interests by guarding ourselves from other people. One of the ways to avoid war is to recognize the legitimate interests of other countries as stated by them. The war in Ukraine could have been avoided if NATO and the US had acknowledged Russia's stated security interest in Ukraine's not becoming a member of NATO. But that interest was totally discarded by the West - not even put on the table, not even some sort of compromise which would have recognized that stated interest. I'm not saying if that interest was legitimate or not - only that that was the stated interest on the Russian side that was completely ignored and never even negotiated. The result of that non-negotiation and non-compromise was the mess in Ukraine right now - a grinding war of attrition in which only Ukraine civilian lives and only Ukraine real estate are being destroyed. Ukraine would like nothing better than to have advanced weapons such as F-16 fighter jets which would allow them to spread the war into Russian territory, and then you have World War III. That seems to be where we are heading.

Off the Top of My Head

The Glory of War

by John Lawrence

Throughout history men have gone to war to cover themselves in glory and prove their masculinity. In World War I, many young British men were gung ho for going to war. They intended to cover themselves in glory and be home before Christmas. Instead many of them died face down in muddy trenches or were impaled on barbed wire. According to historycrunch.com: "...one of the main reasons for the excitement of the war was that many viewed it as an adventure. They read stories about soldiers bravely marching into battle and dying heroically on the battlefields for their countries. For many of these young soldiers, they viewed the Great War as their opportunity to play a role in the ‘glory of war’ and follow in the path of earlier soldiers in earlier European conflicts. To them, war seemed adventurous and a show of bravery that many claimed they ‘did not want to miss’." It was forever so but in general only the victors were able to cover themselves in glory.

War, I would contend, is primarily a masculine pursuit. It represents an attempt by men to prove their manhood. Even some American Indian tribes cultivated a warrior tradition. Their women would have nothing to do with men until they had proved themselves in war. According to Wikipedia: "What evolved among the Plains Native Americans from the 17th to the late 19th century was warfare as both a means of livelihood and a sport. Young men gained both prestige and plunder by fighting as warriors, and this individualistic style of warfare ensured that success in individual combat and capturing trophies of war were highly esteemed." Not for nothing were they called Braves. Martina Sprague in her book The Glory of War: The Way to Historical Immortality writes:  "What motivates men to go to war? The answer is the desire for recognition and the opportunity to gain eternal fame. War is perhaps the most common way in which a man can become a hero. We tend to romanticize war. War is portrayed as a daring adventure for a sacred cause, where the soldier will ultimately reach the highest level of self-actualization. As demonstrated by the great military figures in history, the promise of honor and heroism can help a man conquer the world."

Covering oneself in glory, proving one's masculinity, becoming a hero, these are ultimately traps which cause the perpetuation of war. Some men become addicted to war, the excitement of war. If one war ends, they will seek out the next one. Life is never so dull as life without war. It is the ultimate football game because the stakes - life or death - are so high. Witness the volunteers from other countries who are putting their lives on the line in Ukraine. The problem is that the pursuit of peace is never as exciting as the pursuit of war. Until peacemaking becomes as noble and glorious a pursuit as war, there is no hope for the human race to live peaceably and cooperatively side by side with each other. Until they give out as many medals and honors for peace heroes as they do for war heroes, the human race will go down fighting and ultimately extinguish each other.

I'm afraid that the war in Ukraine is only the latest example of people preoccupied with the excitement of war. Sure it was a clumsy and ignoble thing for Russia to do to so overtly invade Ukraine. They should have taken a page out of the CIA's book and been more subtle and covert about it. For example, the CIA undermined the democratically elected regime of Salvador Allende in Chile because he was a socialist and a Marxist ushering in the regime of Augusto Pinochet and his reign of terror. "According to the Chilean government, the number of executions and forced disappearances was at least 3,095 [under Pinochet]. Operation Condor, a U.S.-supported terror operation focusing on South America, was founded at the behest of the Pinochet regime in late November 1975, his 60th birthday." I'm afraid that Zelensky is following the same playbook of promoting the war based on 'glory for Ukraine' and his David and Goliath symbolism. His insatiable lust for American artillery shells and other advanced weaponry is duly granted by President Biden and the European allies with the goal of "winning the war." No one except the Chinese seem the least interested in creating a peaceful solution to the war. Instead the war will only be escalated when Ukraine gets F-15 fighter jets. Then they will be able to hit Russian targets in Russia escalating the war even further. Until now tragically it's only Ukrainian civilian lives and property that are being destroyed.

It seems like revenge, hatred for Russia and glory for Ukraine are the ultimate factors at work here not a search for compromise which both sides can live with. Does Russia have any legitimate national security interests in Ukraine's not becoming a member of NATO? Did the US have any legitimate national security interests in Chile nor becoming a socialist and Marxist state? There are always many reasons for war, but few for peace. Meanwhile, a lack of cooperation among the world's nations is hastening the day in which global warming will put an end to human civilization unless we can wake up and see that peace and cooperation are more glorious than war.

Off the Top of My Head

The Mid Terms: Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire

by John Lawrence

Voters are going to vote Republican because they don't like the economy. Really? What have the Republicans proposed to do about that? Cut social security and Medicare. Yeah, that'll fix the economy all right. Give more tax breaks to billionaires? That'll fix the economy for sure. Take away Biden's forgiveness of student loan debt? That'll really fix it. "Kitchen table" voters don't like inflation? What are Republicans proposing to do about that? The only tool in the arsenal for inflation cutting is the Fed's raising interest rates and the Fed is independent of both parties. Besides the only tool the Fed has is probably not the right tool for fixing this inflation. But it will eventually destroy what seems to be a pretty good economy despite inflation. The biggest way to fight inflation is to end the war in Ukraine which will bring gas prices down. Additionally, all the weaponry that is being "given" to Ukraine is really being bought from US weapons manufacturers and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin. This is pouring more money into the American economy at a time when money needs to be extracted from the American economy to fight inflation. The Fed's raising of interest rates is an attempt to increase unemployment which is the traditional way that the Fed fights inflation. The so-called Philips curve says that inflation is directly caused by too much employment, and, if you increase unemployment, it will bring inflation down. There is a direct correlation between unemployment and inflation. So the Fed, although no politician will say it, is trying desperately to increase unemployment. This hurts poor people the most, and, whether it will decrease inflation under the present circumstances, is debatable.

However, the war in Ukraine amounts to a protracted stalemate. As long as the west supplies Ukraine with weapons and North Korea, Iran and China supply Russia with weapons, the war will continue. No one on either side wants to talk peace. Each side wants to win at all costs. So the war will drag the world economy down into inflation and recession. Russia holds the winning cards in terms of its ability to literally destroy Ukraine from the air regardless of what is happening on the battlefield. This is not World War II where success on the battlefield was the key to winning the war. It's more like World War I where trench warfare and stalemate predominated. Territorial Russia remains virtually untouched since the rules are that the war will be entirely fought on Ukraine's territory, and the west to its credit doesn't want an expansion of the war. In the final analysis this gives Russia the advantage. Ukraine is fighting a defensive war, and Russia is fighting an offensive war. It's likely that neither party will run out of resources. That means the longer the war goes on, the more of Ukraine will be destroyed. There needs to be a peace commission and a peace process in which both sides can air their grievances and aspirations. What makes the most sense? I'm sure there is a possible way out, but neither side seems to want to compromise in the interests of ameliorating the lives of the Ukrainian people and getting back to normalcy. For each side their national pride is more important than the lives of their citizens.

Joe Biden could propose a solution to the war which would also go a long way to ameliorating inflation. Unfortunately, Biden is only interested in demonizing Putin. This is not a productive way to create peace. Biden is only fueling the war, and Putin won't back down due to pride. The more Putin is demonized, the more his hackles are raised. The west should be trying to lower Putin's hackles, not raise them. Ukrainian lives hang in the balance. Russian soldiers' lives are also in the balance although Russian civilians so far have escaped most of the suffering. Ukraine taking back real estate will not in the final analysis win the war because Russia can lob missiles into Ukraine ad infinitum. Only a peace process, compromise, consideration for civilian lives and reintegration of Russia into the world community will make it possible for people in that region of the world to again lead normal lives. Winning the war for either side is not a realistic option.

Off the Top of My Head

Is There an Off Ramp to Peace in Ukraine?

by John Lawrence

In a hypothetical handshake between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin, the agreement was that the war would be fought entirely within Ukraine's borders, and that the US and the west would provide no boots on the ground in Ukraine. Until recently that unacknowledged agreement has been honored by both sides. The US has sought to contain the war also by not providing Ukraine with any long range missiles with which it could attack Russian territory. The idea was that the two sides would slug it out on the conventional military battlefield although Russia clearly has the means by which it could attack anywhere in Ukraine with missiles. The recent attack on the Kerch bridge followed by missile strikes on Kyiv represents an escalation of the war. In the "conventional" war Russia has evidently been losing. From Russia's perspective they have other modes of attack than just a conventional battlefield war. In the words of one Russian general, Russia should bomb Ukraine back to the 18th century. At this point Ukraine has little or no air defense capabilities, and Russia could do just that. So will Russia violate the unwritten agreement that the war will be won or lost on the battlefield? Probably "yes" if they are losing on the battlefield. Russia has long range missiles; Ukraine doesn't. Russia has an air force; Ukraine doesn't. Ukraine has no air defense system. The US and the west will not use their air force resources within Ukraine. This, as Joe Biden rightly observes, would start World War 3.

So why is the West deluding itself by thinking Ukraine could win this war and things could peacefully continue from there? Why is Russia trying to win a conventional war that it clearly is losing. Why are there no negotiations to try and settle this conflict in order to prevent further human suffering and devastation of Ukraine? Why is there no peace process underway? The US air force is not going to come to the aid of Ukraine. The US is not going to give Ukraine long range missiles so that it could attack inside Russia's borders. As atrocious as the Russian side has been made to seem by western media, Russia has exercised at least some restraint by not wiping Kiev off the map with missile strikes. Now that dynamic seems to have changed. Russia can inflict much damage on Kyiv and western Ukraine that it has recently refrained from doing. But now the gloves may be off. So my prognosis is that the war will get even more destructive because Kyiv and western Ukraine are essentially sitting ducks for Russian missile strikes. So why should Russia continue to fight a war on the ground that it is losing? The US and the west is concerned that Russia could use a battlefield nuclear weapon. Russia does not need to do that in order to devastate Kyiv and western Ukraine.

Unless there is some attempt at a peace process or a negotiated settlement, the destruction of Ukraine and the suffering of its people will only get worse. Modern wars are not constrained to military troops on the battlefield as they were in Napoleanic times. Increasingly in modern warfare, more civilian than military lives have been lost. Demonizing Putin will not win the day for Ukraine. Ukraine has belonged to Russia more often than not for hundreds of years. It was essentially peacefully "given" to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954. Nina Khrushcheva, the political scientist and great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, the then First Secretary of the Communist Party, said of Khrushchev's motivation "it was somewhat symbolic, somewhat trying to reshuffle the centralized system and also, full disclosure, Nikita Khrushchev was very fond of Ukraine, so I think to some degree it was also a personal gesture toward his favorite republic. He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine." Russia clearly has a historical interest in Ukraine, not to mention the fact that the Russian Black Sea fleet is based in Sevastopol which is in Crimea.

The US and the west continues to ignore Russian history at it's and Ukraine's peril. Russia will obviously not let the country that harbors its Russian military fleet become a part of NATO. That would almost be a contradiction in terms. The negotiated solution to this war, an off ramp to peace, seems unthinkable at this point, but decent human beings on both sides better start thinking about it. Unless they do, there will be even more destruction of Ukrainian civilians and of the Ukrainian civilization.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 6 - Strengthening the Border

by John Lawrence

As much as the provision of safe zones and other aspects that have been mentioned in this series, strengthening the US southern border is equally important. The problem is that there are those who would rather take their chances illegally entering the US rather than going to a safe zone or a port of entry and asking for asylum there. Right now only about 20% of asylum seekers actually get it. What we want to encourage is legal, orderly immigration, not helter skelter, chaotic and random immigration by people illegally crossing the border and vanishing into the interior of the US. Democrats don't emphasize enough their preference for legal and not illegal immigration enough. One gets the impression that they are for immigration whether it is legal or illegal.  So Republicans are the ones who are left with the issue of strengthening the border to minimize illegal immigration. Democrats should be just as concerned about non citizens breaching the southern border illegally as Republicans are.

Since those going to the proposed safe zones may never be cleared or given asylum, desperate people will still take their chances by trying to enter the US illegally. As the law stands now, if they set foot in the US and ask for asylum, they must be given a court date (right now the waiting time to appear in court is 4 1/2 years) and allowed to stay in the US while they are waiting. They cannot access government benefits and given a green card, however, until asylum is granted. Part of disincentivizing illegal immigration is to change this law so that those entering illegally can be deported. The other part is to strengthen the southern border both physically and electronically. Satellite observation should be used. More human resources should also be put into border protection. Potential immigrants can always apply for asylum at a port of entry, but, if safe zones in Guatemala or other central American countries are realized, people would not have to make the long trek to the US to apply at a port of entry. Therefore, as much as I hate to say it, Trump was right to want to build a border wall. That in and of itself is not enough to discourage illegal immigration. Suffice it to say that more resources should be put into protecting the southern border while incentivizing potential immigrants to apply for asylum in safe zones closer to their home countries as Representative Gonzalez has proposed..

Legal and orderly immigration should be encouraged and the numbers let in should increase. There is a labor shortage in the US for the kinds of jobs that immigrants usually are qualified for. This means agricultural and construction workers among other kinds of laborers. Increasing the number of legal immigrants let into the country will not only ameliorate the labor shortage but will reduce inflation as supply chains will become more efficient. I am for humane treatment of immigrants, but incentivizing them to trek to the southern border and enter illegally is not humane. Asylum seekers, refugees and those wishing to immigrate for a better life should all be treated humanely and incentivized to apply in a legal and orderly manner.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 4 - Congressman Vicente Gonzalez' Safe Zone Proposal

by John Lawrence

Similar to suggestions in this series, Congressman Gonzalez has proposed a safe zone in Guatemala from which asylum seekers could apply to enter the United States and take the pressure off the southern border. At the same time the law that allows admission to the US for anyone setting foot on the US would change. People doing this would be transported back to the safe zone. They could apply for asylum there. Congressman Vicente's proposal is the following:

“America is a haven for those looking to escape poverty, violence, and religious or political persecution,” stated Congressman Gonzalez. “It is time we address our flawed immigration process and ensure the safety of migrants and the security of our country. I am proud to introduce this legislation that allows individuals to apply for asylum in their home country—breaking the cycle of dependence on human traffickers and the deadly risk of trekking thousands of miles over harsh terrain. 

“The Safe Zones Act provides much needed relief to our border communities and gives a humane path to asylum seekers, removing their reliance on cartels for passage to our southern border. The Safe Zones Act allows people to apply for asylum legally and securely in a process that alleviates pressure on our Border Patrol personnel, border communities, and our immigration courts. The scenes we have witnessed from migrants dying in tractor-trailers to drowning in the Rio Grande are nothing short of horrific and heartbreaking. It is time we adequately address immigration reform with common-sense, bipartisan measures that provide actual results.  

“I urge my colleagues to join me and send this bill to President Biden’s desk. Seeking a better life in the United States should not be a death sentence for families. It is time we change the system for the better.” 

It goes on:

• Safe Zones are designated by the Secretary of State under section 207(g) to accept and process applications for refugee admissions to the United States.

• Safe Zones may include embassies, consulates, other diplomatic facilities, or other facilities as determined to be appropriate by the Secretary of State.

The only thing I would add is, considering conservative concerns, the border itself should be strengthened to discourage illegal immigration. If those attempting to cross the US border know that they will be caught and transported back to the safe zone, they will be disincentivized from doing so.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle

by John Lawrence

The number of people seeking admission to the US and Europe is only going to increase due to a number of factors - climate change will be the main one as time goes on. The international laws on asylum seeking need to be revised. Right now anyone who presents themselves at the border of the US or a European country and requests asylum can legally enter that country and have their asylum request considered although it may or may not be granted. The problem is that the law as written expects that applicants are individuals with a specific request. The situation now, however, is that huge throngs of people are migrating due to war, crime, economic conditions and increasingly climate change. The reality is that it's not an individual phenomenon any more. Although any country is required to accept asylum seekers regardless if they had anything to do with creating the conditions that led to the people requesting asylum, the immensity of the problem makes the current law inadequate and insufficient.

The solution to this seemingly intractable problem is multifaceted. 1) The law that says that anyone setting foot on American soil is entitled to asylum and a hearing needs to be invalidated. 2) Defenses at the border need to be increased so that illegal asylum seekers (those who don't apply for asylum at a port of entry) can't cross the border illegally. 3) The US needs to intervene in countries where the conditions contribute to migration and to the extent possible ameliorate those conditions so that people can stay in their own country and not be in danger of being killed or intimidated by criminals or gangs. In other words so that they can have security in their own countries. In addition the US should assist to the extent possible in creating the economic conditions such that people would want to stay in their own countries since more and more refugees and asylum seekers are economic refugees. 4) The US needs to encourage people to apply for asylum in their own countries by making it impossible to gain entry to the US legally or  illegally by coming to the border and making it propitious to apply for asylum or refugee status in their home countries. This could mean even offering cash to those who apply at home rather than coming to the border. In other words both a carrot and a stick approach. We should give them incentives to stay where they are.

The general approach would be to make it futile for migrants to approach the US border and to encourage them to apply for asylum in their home countries even using incentives for that and disincentives for coming to the border. Right now migrants have every incentive to come to the US border because once they have planted even one foot on US soil, it is required by law to give them an asylum hearing, and, meanwhile, they are in the US at least temporarily and need to be given humane treatment which costs money. To boot they may never even show up for their asylum hearing! This is a ridiculous situation. The US has exploited Central and South American countries economically for centuries. It needs to make up for it now by decreasing poverty in those countries and incentivizing people financially to stay in their own countries. To the extent people feel unsafe due to criminal and gang activities, these gangs need to be rooted out with or without the cooperation of the authorities in those countries.

Off the Top of My Head

We Need a Department of Peace to Balance and Offset our War Department

by John Lawrence

Let's face it. the Department of Defense is a euphemism. It was called the Department of War until 1949. So let's call it what it really is. Don't get me wrong. There are times when war is necessary as occurred in WW II. However, we spend about $1 trillion on our War Department while spending little or nothing on peace. Is there really a Peace Corps? Yes, and its budget is about $400 million. That's about 4 ten thousandths of the War Department budget. My point is that we should be making at least the same effort towards peace as we're making towards war, and we should be putting our money where our mouth is. This doesn't mean we totally disarm ourselves. It means that we are making an effort towards creating peace in the world if at all possible and are willing to devote an equal amount of resources towards it. In our present state it's all about threatening war in order to to create a state of peace. It's Pax Americana similar to the Pax Romana which meant that you didn't mess with Rome or else you were threatened with violence. Instead of creating peace by means of a threat of war, we should be actively pursuing a peaceful world instead.

What would a Department of Peace actually do? Well, diplomacy would be under this department instead of the State Department for starters. Second, the American equivalent of China's Belt and Road initiative. Building infrastructure around the world just as China is doing. But what's most important at the present time is converting the world to green infrastructure. The middle class in India is growing. They want to live just like Americans. As more Indians enter the middle class they are consuming more fossil fuels to provide the energy to do so. This is contributing to the looming climate disaster. Just what we don't need is more carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere as a result of more people gentrifying into the middle class. Therefore, a Department of Peace, which should include the Peace Corps, would step up the efforts not only to change the fossil fuel habit in the US, but to actively change it around the world. About a half a trillion dollar budget would be about right while decreasing the War (Defense) budget which is 10 times the combined budgets of the rest of the world to half a trillion.

President Biden wants a Civilian Climate Corps reminiscent of the Civilian Conservation Corps which President Roosevelt established to build parks and plant trees during the Great Depression. An excellent idea in view of the fact that planting a trillion trees would suck the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Unless we do that there is already enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 410 ppm to melt both poles. Why not require participation in the Civilian Conservation Corps for people receiving welfare benefits who aren't otherwise employed or who are unemployable in the prevailing economy. I'm thinking about the homeless and others for whom this might be a first step to getting back on their feet in the so-called real world. I'm in favor of the government being the employer of last resort, and employment in a Civilian Climate Corps is the perfect solution both for them and for the environment.

Building the elements of peace around the world would entail looking out for the health care needs of people outside the US in our era of pandemics. This is also good sense in a selfish way since viruses can transmit world wide in a matter of days if not hours. They don't respect national boundaries. People to people cultural contacts with people of other nations brings about understanding and the realization that, no matter what the religious or ethnic differences seem to be, human beings are all essentially the same deep down and all have the same needs and aspirations. Helping others to realize their aspirations creates peace in the world. Cultural and educational exchanges are an important way to increase mutual understanding. There are many ways to create peace in the world. The US shouldn't be always taking the stance of trying to put down those peoples and countries who don't follow the US way of life. Others might have a different way of setting up their societies, but rather than taking this as a threat, we should engage diplomatically and peacefully if at all possible knowing that in the final analysis, if push came to shove, we also have the means to defend ourselves. A Department of Peace and a Department of War should go hand in hand. Today it is lopsided in favor of war.

Off the Top of My Head

The Pope Suggests NATO Partially to Blame for Russian Invasion

by John Lawrence

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera, Pope Francis said that “NATO barking at Russia” caused the Kremlin “to react badly and unleash the conflict” with Ukraine. The Pope has requested a meeting with Russian President Putin but so far to no avail. What is clear is that the West did not take Russia's objections to NATO expansion seriously and acted unilaterally to march NATO up to Russia's door. Besides that the US abrogated or just dismissed arms control treaties with Russia without further consultation. President George W Bush and Putin both came to power in the year 2000. Bush announced America’s intent to withdraw from the 1974 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that had been central to the U.S.-USSR strategic relationship. Abrogating the treaty did not go down well in Moscow, especially given the the huge military technological lead the Kremlin believed Washington had after the 1991 Gulf War. Then in 2019 during the Trump administration the US abruptly abrogated the INF treaty which was the centerpiece of the post Cold War negotiations between Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. There was no attempt by the US or NATO to renegotiate these treaties which was a slap in the face to Russia.

The Hill reported:

When America intervened in Afghanistan in late 2001, Putin was irritated because the Bush team rejected Russian advice based on its decade-long failure in that country. In 2003, Putin strongly counseled Bush against invading Iraq, as the Russian leader feared the region would be thrown into turmoil. And the continuing expansion of NATO was neuralgic for Russia. A series of U.S. administrations downplayed or ignored how serious this issue was for Russia.

At the Munich Security Conference, Putin unleashed an angry broadside against the U.S. as a “uni-power” and against NATO expansion. Participants were shocked by the intensity of Putin’s attacks but otherwise largely dismissed them. That was a mistake. It was clear that Putin believed he was being disrespected and marginalized by the U.S. and NATO, adding to his growing resentment about the patronizing treatment he believed Russia was receiving.

NATO expanded during the 1990s largely due to the imprecations of President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even though President Gorbachev had been promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" as part of a deal to reunify Germany after the Cold War.

Politifact reported:

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’"

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

But Baker and other officials involved in the events have denied that the conversation ever turned on expanding NATO to other countries. 

So basically Gorbachev was sold a bill of goods that, if he consented to the reunification of Germany and with Germany as a NATO member, that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, "given assurances" is not the same as "legal and binding". Therefore, in July 1997, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (where Albright was born) were formally invited to join NATO.

The Conversation reported

"In hindsight, Albright’s curt dismissal of Russia’s security concerns might seem to have been ill-judged. This is especially true in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which some analysts blame in part upon the speed and perceived recklessness of NATO expansion during the 1990s."

One of Albright’s most consequential acts – both as Ambassador to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997 and as Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton – was to support NATO expansion.

NATO had been a cornerstone of the Cold War security order in Europe, binding the United States to the defense of Western Europe. Albright’s approach was to cast NATO not just as a military alliance but as a pillar of international stability and an engine of democratic progress. She saw the alliance as a conduit through which the United States could impart peace, order and good governance upon a fragile European continent.

At the time, critics cautioned that NATO enlargement would antagonize a post-Soviet Russia and could end up worsening the European security order.

Albright’s answer was uncompromising.

“We do not need Russia to agree to enlargement,” she assured senators in 1997, stressing the word “need.”

The strategic and moral case for enlargement was overwhelming, explained Albright. If the newly democratized states of Central and Eastern Europe craved the protection of the United States, she concluded, then no other nation should be allowed to stand in the way.

In short there might have been no NATO expansion or at least Russia's security concerns might have bee addressed if it were not for Madeleine Albright and later for Bush era neocons who pressed for NATO admittance for Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia much to Russia's chagrin. All along the road of NATO expansion Russia's security concerns were ignored or belittled or disrespected. Russia was dismissed as a weak and powerless nation with no skin in the game, powerless to do anything or have any say as NATO was quick to identify Russia as a potential enemy which justified the arms buildup by the US. Notably the European nations did not commit anywhere as much of their financial resources to an arms buildup, a fact lamented by President Donald Trump who suggested that the European nations were letting the US carry the load.

During the Cold War, US forces had been deployed around the world for the explicit purpose of deterring Soviet aggression. When the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991, so did the primary justification for America’s enormous troop presence abroad and globe-spanning web of military alliances. However, defense spending was given a new justification by Madeleina Albright in order to increase the US militarized global role in the post-Cold War era. She supplied a new rationale for spending on the military industrial complex and the development of ever more destructive weapons systems. NATO expansion and the abrogation of important nuclear arms treaties with Russia were a thumb in the eye of the Russian bear.

Off the Top of My Head

A New Security Structure for Europe?

by John Lawrence

There can be no peace in Europe until all European nations are part of a revised security structure that includes Russia. Instead the west is setting up a formula for continual tensions and continual war whether hot or cold. There must be a comprehensive security structure, not one which pits some nations against some other nations, not one where one bloc is hostile towards the other bloc. This is the failure of NATO. Until we get to the point where all nations are part of one cooperative bloc, we'll never solve the global warming problem. The division between democratic and authoritarian nations has lost all meaning and all validity. It shouldn't be cause for a dividing line among nations. NATO itself is composed of some authoritarian nations. Take Hungary and Poland, for example. Reuters reported:

"BRUSSELS, Feb 15, 2022 (Reuters) - Hungary and Poland are turning increasingly authoritarian, a European rights group said on Tuesday, a day before the European Union's top court rules on whether to cut funding to member states flouting democratic rights and freedoms. The Berlin-based Civil Liberties Union for Europe singled out the two formerly communist EU countries in a broader report highlighting how the rule of law has deteriorated across the 27-nation bloc during the coronavirus pandemic. The umbrella advocacy, which brings together rights groups from 17 EU countries, said Hungary and Poland were "seizing further control of the justice system, civil society and media, while cutting basic human rights and fueling divisions by scapegoating migrants and other minority groups". Warsaw and Budapest deny wrongdoing and accuse the EU of imposing liberal values alien to what they say are their traditional, conservative and Catholic societies. Hundreds of billions of euros are at stake in the rule of law battles in the EU. The bloc's cohesion and international standing have been damaged by the increasingly bitter dispute. Thirty-six billion euros in recovery funds earmarked for Poland, and 7 billion euros for Hungary, are already frozen over their track record on democratic rights and values. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has accused the EU of waging a cultural "jihad" on Hungary, while Warsaw has threatened to retaliate by stalling progress in other EU policies where decisions are made by consensus."

It is not helpful to continue to divide the world along the lines of democratic vs authoritarian. It is also not helpful (except to arms and weapons manufacturers) to continually fuel those divisions and even hatreds based on different political and economic systems. If the various countries can cooperate among each other, we shouldn't be concerned about what goes on within those countries or start telling them what to do or how to conduct their business. Definitely, we should not be setting up sophisticated weapons systems right on some country's border. That in and of itself is a hostile act. Like it or not we only have one planet, and we can either learn to live with one another or that planet will be lost to global warming. If we can get cooperation among nations and have constructive relationships among nations, then perhaps we can come together to save the planet from going up in flames. This involves mutual respect among nations and not putting down of one nation by another. We only have a short time to cooperate on this level, probably less than 5 years, before the effects of global warming will make planet earth uninhabitable, at least for our species.

Athens Declaration Calls for End to Ukraine War and Creation of 'Lasting Peace'

Thousands of demonstrators join Fridays for Future's global day of action to stand with Ukraine by walking down Willy-Brandt-Strasse, a main thoroughfare in Hamburg, Germany. (Photo: Daniel Reinhardt/dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Put forth by international progressive leaders "calling the world to sanity," the document envisions a global security framework committed to de-escalating tensions in the world.

 

Andrea Germanos

May 13, 2022

A group of international progressives on Friday released a declaration demanding an urgent withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine, a global end to "rampant militarism," and the forging of a collaborative movement to ensure lasting peace and a planet safe from climate catastrophe.

The Athens Declaration was unveiled at a press conference in the Greek capital by Turkish author Ece Temelkuran; British Member of Parliament and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn; and former Greek finance minister and leader of the MeRA25 party Yanis Varoufakis. The three are all Progressive International council members.

"Every million dollars spent on major armaments is a million dollars not made available for schools, not available for hospitals, not available for housing, not available to feed the very hungriest in the world."

"Our purpose here," said Corbyn, "is to bring about.. a voice for peace."

In its entirety, the declaration states:

• We stand with the people of Ukraine, as we stand with every people suffering invasion, displacement and occupation.
• We demand an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of Russian forces and a comprehensive Peace Treaty guaranteed by the European Union, the United States and Russia in the context of the United Nations.
• We urge respect for International Law and all refugees, who must have their rights protected and offered a place of safety regardless of ethnicity, religion etc.
• We oppose the division of the world in competing blocs that invest in rampant militarism, hyper-modern weapons of mass destruction and a New Cold War.
• We believe that lasting peace can be achieved only by replacing all military blocs with an inclusive international security framework that de-escalates tensions, expands freedoms, fights poverty, limits exploitation, pursues social and environmental justice and terminates the domination of one country by another.

With these thoughts in mind, we call upon democrats across the world to join forces in a New Non-Aligned Movement. In this context, we view non-aligned, democratic and sovereign nations working together as the route to lasting peace and a world that can avert climate catastrophe and bequeath to the next generation a decent chance at creating the conditions for globally shared prosperity.

Temelkuran—who said during the press conference that the declaration "is calling the world to sanity"—put the need for such a document in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

"We are actually closer to war, all-out war, than we'd like to think," she said, warning that "we are also dealing with fascism—and fascism, like war, does not happen overnight."

"It begins by normalizing the ugly, and the wrong, and also the evil," said Temelkuran.

"Has the pandemic taught us nothing about global inequality and global insecurity?"

"One of the most dangerous facts about today," she continued, "is the non-challenge of the international institutions and the proud shamelessness of authoritarian leaders."

But "when there is no hope, there is our determination to come together, to speak to truth, and to defend justice and human dignity," she said. "This is where we are."

In his remarks, Corbyn also addressed Russia's invasion, saying that "the situation facing the world at the present time is dire and grim."

He pointed to the roughly six million who've been forced to flee Ukraine and "the horrors of the war" that "are taking life, are devastating the place," and "threatening the world's food supplies."

Corbyn also warned that "the economic devastation of this war will have a massive effect on the global economy, and because of the inequality of the global economy, it's the poorest people in the poorest countries that will suffer the most, followed by the poorest people in the richest countries."

"If the world just goes on into developing into more and more military alliances greater and greater levels of expenditure on armaments and weapons of mass destruction, you then have to ask yourself, every million dollars spent on major armaments is a million dollars not made available for schools, not available for hospitals, not available for housing, not available to feed the very hungriest in the world."

"Has the pandemic taught us nothing about global inequality and global insecurity?" he said.

"So our plea today," said Corbyn, "is for an urgent and immediate ceasefire where all of the world's leaders demand it... and a future security arrangement guaranteed by all the world's major powers as a step towards a more peaceful world."

The declaration was announced a day after Progressive International's four-day summit began.

In a keynote address Thursday, Corbyn called the summit "a site of construction" and said it was convened "to take stock of this dying world, and to build the new one that will replace it—brimming with life, bound by love, powered by popular sovereignty."

---

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden's Policy: Speak Loudly but Carry a Small Stick

by John Lawrence

As opposed to Theodore Roosevelt's policy: speak softly but carry a big stick. I think Biden's policy is correct. By all means we don't want World War III. As Ellen Brown makes clear on Web of Debt blog, sanctions will not do much except hasten the day when the US dollar is not the only world's reserve currency. There are so many workarounds to sanctions, and billionaires can always replace their super yachts. Russia has a fiat currency just like the US dollar. Modern Monetary Theory has shown that a country with a fiat currency can have its central bank print as much of that currency as it wishes. The only constraining factor is inflation. Right now the US is more constrained by inflation than Russia is. There is no need for Russia's domestic economy to suffer because of inflation. Businesses can continue to receive investment loans from the central bank. International trade will continue with friendly countries like India, China, Venezuela and Turkey. Turkey is a member of NATO by the way, and India is the world's largest democracy.

Daily Sabah reported on March 11, 2022 in Turkish businesses expect progress on using rubles in trade with Russia :

"Since the currency dispute with shipping companies is causing problems in the delivery of goods passing through customs, Turkey should actively work to develop a mechanism to facilitate trade with Russia in rubles, Istanbul Chamber of Commerce (ITO) head Şekib Avdagiç said Friday. Avdagiç stated that the companies working with Russia see the withdrawal of Western countries from Moscow as a new opportunity and emphasized that it is important to enable the use of the national currency of Russia. The issue was also brought up during President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s phone call with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, he reiterated. Erdoğan told Putin that, apart from the euro and dollar, trade between the two countries can be carried out using the Russian ruble and Chinese yuan."

Aljazeera reported:

Mumbai, India–Indian authorities are actively considering dedicated payment mechanisms for trade with Russia to enable existing trade obligations in the wake of sanctions imposed on the Kremlin, a move that will also pave the way for cheaper oil imports to meet the country’s energy demands. In the past month, as sanctions have been imposed on Russia, the scope of a payment mechanism in local currencies has expanded from being a means to sustain ongoing trade to possibilities of deeper engagement, including increasing bilateral trade.

Of course, US authorities are managing the news here just as they are in Russia. They don't want you to know that our erstwhile ally, India, the world's largest democracy is doing workarounds to avoid US sanctions. As Ellen's article points out, we in the US may be better off once the US dollar is not the only world's reserve currency. At that point we may have to rely more on our domestic economy and infrastructure just as Russia is being forced to do now. So we won't have to be at the mercy of supply chains from other parts of the world. More stuff will be manufactured here in the good old USA, and that's a good thing.

Off the Top of My Head

There are Two Ways War in Ukraine Could Have Been Prevented

by John Lawrence

One, Ukraine could have been made a member of NATO before war began, and (2) Putin could have been given a guarantee that Ukraine would never become a member of NATO. So why didn't either one of these two possibilities prevent a destructive war which has brought death and destruction to the people of Ukraine? The fact is that NATO didn't want Ukraine as a member. Ukraine didn't meet NATO's high standards especially with regard to corruption. According to Wikipedia:

""Corruption is widespread in Ukrainian society. In 2012 Ernst & Young put Ukraine among the three most-corrupt nations of the world—alongside Colombia and Brazil. In 2015 The Guardian called Ukraine "the most corrupt nation in Europe". According to a poll conducted by Ernst & Young in 2017, experts considered Ukraine to be the ninth-most corrupt nation in the world. According to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (a scale of least to most corrupt nations), Ukraine ranked 122nd out of 180 countries in 2021, the second most corrupt in Europe, ahead of Russia. United States diplomats described Ukraine under Presidents Kuchma (in office from 1994 to 2005) and Yushchenko (in office from 2005 to 2010) as a kleptocracy, according to WikiLeaks cables."

Who knew? So NATO didn't want Ukraine as a member at least until it had cleaned up all the corruption. That gave Putin an open door to invade because Biden had declared that there would be no American involvement in terms of boots on the ground in Ukraine because he didn't want to start World War III. Plausible enough. However, Putin probably would never have invaded Ukraine if it had been a member of NATO which would mean that Russia would have to have been subjected to the collective wrath of all the European countries plus the United States. So instead of starting WW III, we would sanction the hell out of Russia. This, however, is not preventing Russia from wreaking havoc on the Ukrainian people.

Putin's chief demand was that Ukraine never become a member of NATO. Sweden and Finland are non-aligned so why couldn't Ukraine have agreed to the same status thus meeting Putin's main demand and prevented an invasion. All NATO had to do was offer Putin a piece of paper which was signed and dated and contained words to the effect that Ukraine would never become a member of NATO, and, furthermore, if Putin invaded Ukraine, the treaty would be abrogated. Instead the NATO negotiators would not even consider Putin's main concern. His logic was that the US would not allow missiles to be placed right on its border or anywhere in the western hemisphere for that matter. The US had been involved in the overthrow of democratically elected governments in all the Americas. According to Wikipedia:

"In Argentina, military forces overthrew the democratically elected President Isabel Perón in the 1976 Argentine coup d'état, starting the military dictatorship of General Jorge Rafael Videla, known as the National Reorganization Process. Both the coup and the following authoritarian regime was eagerly endorsed and supported by the United States government with US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger paying several official visits to Argentina during the dictatorship.

"After the democratic election of President Salvador Allende in 1970, an economic war ordered by President Richard Nixon, among other things, caused the 1973 Chilean coup d'état with the involvement of the CIA due to Allende's democratic socialist leanings. What followed was the decades-long US-backed military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet."

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to support the Contras, a right-wing Nicaraguan political group to combat the influence held by the Sandinistas in the Nicaraguan government. Various anti-government rebels in Nicaragua were organized into the Nicaraguan Democratic Force, the first Contra group, at the behest of the CIA. The CIA also supplied the Contras with training and equipment, including materials related to torture and assassination. There have also been allegations that the CIA engaged in drug trafficking in Nicaragua.

The US even sold weapons to its purported enemy, Iran, and used the money to fund the contras after the US Congress refused to do so. So while the US saw fit to protect its hemispheric interests, No one in the present US administration can see why Putin could possibly view Ukraine as a potential member of NATO as a threat even though geographically Ukraine can be seen as a dagger into the midsection of Russia. As a member of NATO, missiles might be stationed right on Russia's border with Ukraine, but why should Russia be concerned about this? NATO are, after all, good guys who wouldn't even let Ukraine join their club unless it cleaned up its act. While the US used the covert operations of the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with brutal military dictatorships, Russia has used its own military troops to do the same thing to protect its interests. That's the only difference.

The heart of the matter goes back to the end of the Cold War. According to The Untold History of the United States:

"Though willing to allow for the radical transformation of eastern Europe, Gorbachev hoped the end of the Cold War would lead to the dissolution of NATO as well as the Warsaw Pact. Recognizing that that might not happen, he insisted that NATO at least not expand farther to the east. He was even willing to allow for reunification of the two Germanys as long as NATO troops and weapons were not permitted on former East German soil. But he and other Russian leaders, who believed they had received ironclad U.S. and German promises that eastward expansion by NATO would never be permitted, were in a for a rude awakening when the Clinton and second Bush administration continued expanding right up to Russia's doorstep. Russian leaders expressed outrage and a sense of betrayal. Although U.S. officials, over the years, have insisted that no such promises were ever given, recently released documents appear to substantiate Russian claims."

So NATO could have proffered a treaty to Putin which guaranteed that Ukraine would never become a member of NATO or they could have negotiated a time period when Ukraine would not be permitted to join. Instead they refused to even negotiate that demand with disastrous results. A hundred years from now NATO might not even exist. It may have been replaced with a new organization that better takes care of the security interests of all European countries including Russia. But the memory of the war in Ukraine will persist a hundred years from now. It represents in the final analysis a total failure of NATO to protect the security interests of all Europeans and not just a select few.

Off the Top of My Head

NATO Should Have Been Dissolved When the Warsaw Pact Was Dissolved After the End of the Cold War in 1991

by John Lawrence

NATO was formed in 1949 after the end of World War II as a counter to the ideological rivalry between communism as espoused by the Soviet Union  and capitalism as espoused by the US and Europe. That ideological rivalry ended in 1991 when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were dismantled. The Warsaw Pact was a security pact between the Soviet Union and eastern European nations in direct response to NATO. Russia became essentially a capitalist nation in 1991. Ergo: no further ideological rivalry. At the same time China was also becoming a capitalist nation despite the name of its ruling party. The Berlin Wall had fallen in 1989. Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, was given assurances that NATO would not advance one inch eastward, an assurance that was abrogated by US administrations shortly thereafter. The security structure of Europe should have been reworked after the fall of the Soviet Union, and NATO should have been eliminated at the same time the Warsaw Pact was eliminated. If that had happened Europe, not the US, would have been responsible for its own security.

So today Vladimir Putin is putting pressure on the western world to do something about the neglected assurances given to Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't move one inch eastward. Ukraine became a part of the Soviet Union after the Second World War and achieved its independence in 1991 when the Soviet Union was dissolved. Crimea had also been part of the Soviet Union and Russia prior to that. In 1954 Nikita Khrushchev, along with the other leadership of the Soviet Union, transferred the Crimean Oblast from the Russian Soviet Federative Social Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Western leaders say that Putin wants to reestablish the Soviet Union or at least maintain control of nations that were previously part of the Soviet Union. Putin has said he wants to establish a new security structure for Europe. That is quite a different prospect from reestablishing the Soviet Union especially in light of the assurances given to Gorbachev about NATO's not moving an inch eastward.

The question must be asked: what is the purpose of NATO, which was established to counteract communist expansionism, when communism no longer exists at least as manifested by Russia. Gorbachev's advisor, Arbitov, had said, "We are going to deprive you of an enemy":

"In another sense, however, the passing of the cold war could not have been more disorienting. In 1987, Georgi Arbatov, a senior adviser to the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, had warned: “We are going to do a terrible thing to you – we are going to deprive you of an enemy.”

"As the Soviet Union passed out of existence, Americans were left not just without that enemy, but without even a framework for understanding the world and their place in it. However imperfectly, the cold war had, for several decades, offered a semblance of order and coherence. The collapse of communism shattered that framework. Where there had been purposefulness and predictability, now there was neither."

Guess again, Mr. Gorbachev. The US military-industrial complex was not to be deprived of an enemy under any circumstances. The subsequent neocons saw to that. What Putin is asking for now is a new framework, a framework that should have been established by the west in diplomatic consultation with Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union and the termination of the Warsaw Pact, NATO's mirror. However, the US and perhaps the other actors as well cannot conceive of a world without war or the threat of war. They cannot conceive of a diplomatic treaty or framework which would leave the world at peace. Peace is an unknown entity and is for all intents and purposes inconceivable. Therefore, Russia is poised to take by force that which might not have been necessary in Putin's eyes if a framework had been established in which NATO hadn't started moving eastward or even conceivably in which European security arrangements could have been established which would have protected  all European nations including Russia sans NATO.

Off the Top of My Head

Russia's Assurance that NATO Would Not Expand an Inch Eastward After the Cold War

by John Lawrence

Does Putin have a point? It is something no western leader will even acknowledge. The fact is that assurances were given to Gorbachev in return for his agreement to let Germany reunify that NATO would not expand an inch eastward. The New York Times reported:

"The biggest obstacle [to the reunification of Germany] was, of course, the Soviet Union. Despite economic hardship at home, the Soviets maintained 380,000 troops in East Germany and still held legal rights of occupation emanating from the unconditional German surrender in 1945. Bonn and Washington thus wanted Moscow to remove its troops and to renounce its claims, without forcing NATO troops out as part of the bargain.

"What would Mr. Gorbachev demand in return? To learn the answer, Mr. Baker [U.S. Secretary of State] and Mr. Kohl [German Chancellor] journeyed to Moscow within a day of each other. On Feb. 9, 1990, Mr. Baker asked Mr. Gorbachev, “Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position?” Mr. Gorbachev, according to Mr. Baker, answered that “any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.” Their meeting ended without any final deals made. Mr. Baker left behind a secret letter, detailing what he had said, for Mr. Kohl in Moscow.

Back in the U.S. President George H W Bush was not happy with Baker's assurances to Gorbachev, and he formulated his own letter to Mr. Kohl that didn't contain the assurances Gorbachev requested. However, in talks with Gorbachev Kohl chose to emphasize Baker's assurance that "NATO would not move an inch eastward" which resulted in Gorbachev agreeing to the reunification of Germany. The New York Times article continued:

"Mr. Kohl chose to echo Mr. Baker, not Mr. Bush. The chancellor assured Mr. Gorbachev, as Mr. Baker had done, that “naturally NATO could not expand its territory” into East Germany. The documents available do not record Mr. Kohl using the presidential phrase — “special military status” — that the National Security Council had rushed over to him. Mr. Kohl’s foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, visiting the Kremlin as well, assured his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, that “for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.”

"Crucially, the Gorbachev-Kohl meeting ended with a deal, as opposed to the Gorbachev-Baker session the previous day. After listening to Mr. Kohl, Mr. Gorbachev agreed that Germany could unify internally. Mr. Kohl and his aides publicized this major concession immediately at a press conference. Then they returned home to begin merging the two Germanys under one currency and economic system."

No U.S. President or leader has ever acknowledged the truth of this situation that, despite the fact that no formal treaty or agreement was ever made, informal assurances were given to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand an inch eastward. So today Russia and the US are on the brink of war in Ukraine because, basically, the U.S. will not acknowledge that Putin has a point. They refuse to concede even that and instead choose to demonize him. This is not how to create peace in the world - by heaping bad intentions on a foreign leader without acknowledging that he has a legitimate complaint. One of the pundits on CNN had the right idea. He said that the west should acknowledge the legitimacy of Putin's position and agree to pull back NATO forces from eastern Europe for at least 25 years or so. Making some sort of concession like this could avoid war and create some manner of peaceful relations between Washington and Moscow. Instead the U.S. - even under Biden! - takes a hard line and insists that Ukraine has a right to choose to be part of NATO. By formally putting off the date at which that could happen, Putin's legitimate concerns could be acknowledged. Instead the U.S. has essentially double crossed Russia on the deal Gorbachev made that "NATO would not expand one inch eastward."

Off the Top of My Head

That's Not Who We Are

by John Lawrence

Obama declared: "That's not who we are" when opining about the more hateful aspects of American society. But the reality is that's who we veritably is, at least some of us Americans. It's impossible to generalize about the American character. We are not a monolithic society. Take Charlottesville for instance. Latter day confederates and ku klux klaners. That's not who we are? That's who some of us are. That's the problem. There is no common set of values. Trump said there were good people on both sides. What is the definition of a "good person"? Is it one who fights to maintain his own way of life or is it one who tries to reach accommodation with others and understand their point of view. For America as a nation in general, it is more the former than the latter. Historically at least since WW II, the US has always taken the path of using force and power to maintain its standing in the world and to maintain its right to exploit the resources of weaker nations while ignoring the welfare of their people. The US has supported right wing, authoritarian dictatorships in South America and elsewhere so that the "supply chain" of natural resources could be extracted and shipped back to the homeland while keeping the cheap native labor cheap. There was no effort to improve the lifestyles of the natives. Those locals who sought to do so were overthrown and right wing dictatorships were installed in Chile, Nicaragua, Argentina, Iran and many other countries too numerous to mention. For many years it was all about the oil. Now we realize that that oil transformed into greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is what's killing us.

When Gorbachev sought detente and the elimination of nuclear weapons in the world, Reagan hung on to his Star Wars fantasy. Neoconservatives in the Reagan administration considered Gorbachev's stated desire to bring peace to the world a sign of weakness to be exploited rather than a signal that a new era of peace could be at hand. This neoconservative foreign policy has been the policy of US Presidents both Democrat and Republican. Jimmy Carter had his Zbigniew Brzezhinski. Nixon had his Henry Kissenger. Reagan and the Bushes had a whole host of neocons fashioning their foreign policy. Reagan himself had no idea about what to do other than that he was against communism. Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick wrote in "The Untold History of the United States":

"But what is Reagan's real legacy? One of the most poorly informed and least engaged chief executives in U.S. history, he empowered a right wing resurgence of hard-line anti-communists who militarized U.S. foreign policy and rekindled the Cold War. He paid lip service to democracy while arming and supporting repressive dictators. He turned local and regional conflicts in the Middle East and Latin America into Cold War battlegrounds, unleashing a reig of terror to suppres popular movements. He spent enormous sums on the military while cutting social programs for the poor. He sharply reduced taxes on the wealthy, tripling the national debt and transforming the U.S. from the world's leading creditor in 1981 into its biggest debtor by 1985. In October 1987, he oversaw the worst stock market collapse since the Great Depression. He let the chance to rid to rid the world of offensive nuclear weapons [proposed by Gorbachev] slip through his fingers because he wouldn't let go of a childish fantasy [Star Wars]. And as for his much-vaunted role in ending the Cold War, as we shall see, the lion's share of credit goes instead to his Soviet counterpart,. Mikhail Gorbachev."

Is it any wonder then, that a chauvinistic and self-serving foreign policy has been internalized by so many "patriots" like the ones who attacked Capitol police on January 6, 2021? They just want what we already have: access to the natural resources of the world for Americans at the expense of indigenous peoples, the continuation of a way of life that favors the fortunes of white, European immigrants at the expense of African American forced immigrants, Latin American immigrants as well as Native Americans. When Obama says over and over, "That's not who we are," it's wishful, thinking because that's exactly who many of us are.

Off the Top of My Head

Cooperation Among Virtual Enemies on Climate Change Next to Impossible

by John Lawrence

Can we stop fighting as the human race has been doing for millenia because we have a common problem that calls for cooperation: climate change? The human race and in particular nation states have never been able to cooperate on a world wide basis. What's more almost every aspect of contemporary society needs to be changed in order for planet earth to be rescued. For instance, the third largest greenhouse gas polluter after the US and China is cattle. Yes, cattle worldwide emit more carbon dioxide equivalents in the form of methane than any country on earth with the exception of the US and China. We should all stop eating beef immediately. How likely is that to happen? And then there's cooperation between the US and China, between the US and Russia. We can't chastise and sanction these countries and then expect them to cooperate with the western world when it comes to climate change.  Time magazine reported:

"From his first months as Secretary of State under Obama, Kerry set out to build a bridge to China on climate while tensions festered on other matters, putting the issue at the center of the relationship. In 2014, in Beijing, Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Barack Obama, with Kerry by his side, announced agenda-setting plans to cut emissions, effectively inviting other countries to get on the same page. On the back of Kerry’s climate diplomacy, Obama and Xi feted each other a year later at a state dinner in Washington—perhaps the zenith of relations between the two countries in recent years. In the early days of the Biden Administration, longtime watchers of international climate politics speculated about whether Kerry would try to repeat that effort. Kerry told me that from the outset he knew that wouldn’t be possible—the Trump presidency had spoiled the well, and, while less vociferous, Biden hasn’t sought to placate China. “It’s a very, very different time now,” Kerry says. “It’s a very different set of political circumstances.”

"Instead, he sought a subtler form of rapprochement, traveling to China in April, becoming the first senior U.S. official to visit since the start of the pandemic. His message, he says, was to create a lane for climate collaboration amid the iciness. The reception was a sharp contrast from the jubilant atmosphere at the state dinner six years earlier. The two parties released a joint statement, agreeing to cooperate but not much more. Then in September, after making the 7,000-mile trip to Tianjin, Kerry encountered even more tense feelings. Despite the long journey, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi only met with him virtually, and said that climate collaboration could not be an “oasis” away from the other rifts in the relationship. “If the oasis is surrounded by desert, sooner or later the oasis will also become desert,” he said."

The crucial points are "Trump spoiled the well" and “If the oasis is surrounded by desert, sooner or later the oasis will also become desert”. Trump set the world back years when it comes to climate change. What will he do if elected President in 2024? The Chinese Foreign Minister's point is that you can't seek cooperation on climate change while at the same time fomenting a chilly relationship verging on a Cold War which the Pentagon is trying to do. For that matter how can we rely on China to produce the major amount of consumer goods for the US while trying to give China orders about how it is to conduct itself on the world stage. It just doesn't compute. You can't compartmentalize a relationship to that extent.

The other point is that how can the rest of the world believe what we say about the urgency of doing something about climate change which entails sacrifice while at the same time holding open the possibility that a climate change denier might be elected President in 2024?

Off the Top of My Head

If Future Generations Are to Be Saved From the Ravages of Climate Change, the US and China Must Cooperate

by John Lawrence

What is more important: habitability of the planet or who "owns" Taiwan? Hawaii is 2500 miles from the US mainland; Taiwan is 100 miles from the Chinese mainland. Yet the US Pentagon is willing to have a war over Taiwan thus precluding any cooperation over climate change thus dooming human civilization on earth. Make sense? We should adopt a reverse Monroe Doctrine and let China "own" Taiwan. What would that mean? Basically a few politicians would lose their jobs. That's all. The Taiwanese would go on making millions of dollars just as the mainland Chinese have. Their lifestyles would not change. What would they have to give up? Basically, nothing. But conservative forces in the US want a Cold War with China. This precludes cooperation on climate change. The US and China are the two biggest greenhouse gas polluters. The US has polluted much longer than has China which has only developed rapidly in only the last 40 years or so. Most of the carbon in the atmosphere is due to US emissions.

The Monroe Doctrine was a United States policy that opposed European colonialism in the Americas. It argued that any intervention in the politics of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the United States. It has been used to keep foreign powers out of the western hemisphere. The argument has been extended to mean that the US has exclusive rights to what goes on anywhere near its shores. Yet the US "owns" Hawaii, 2500 miles from the mainland US. It also "owns" three Pacific territories: the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. Are the Chinese entitled to their own version of the Monroe Doctrine? If so, the western world should keep its nose out of concerns over Taiwan and any other issues regarding territory close to the Chinese mainland like the South China Sea. Cooperation with regard to climate change demands it. If we win this battle over what is legitimate Chinese territory but lose the war on climate change, all is lost not just for the US but for all peoples on the planet. We need to let nationalism subside.

Would we let a Russian affiliate control an island 100 miles off our shore? Cuba is a good example. It's about the same distance off our shore that Taiwan is from mainland China. Yet a nuclear war was almost fought to eliminate Russian influence in Cuba again citing the Monroe Doctrine. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Let the UN broker a deal to let China peacefully take control of Taiwan. I don't think anything much will change either for the mainland Chinese or the Taiwanese Chinese. If situations like these can be resolved peacefully, the US and China together can lead the world away from Armageddon, away from a fiery hellish demise caused by humans' inability to get along. Cooperation is paramount not only for peaceful relations among the various  nations and peoples of the earth, but crucially for the very existence of the human species.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Are There So Many People at the Southern Border Trying to Get In?

by John Lawrence

Maybe this had something to do with it: Between 1900 and 1925, the US repeatedly intervened militarily in Latin America. It sent troops to Honduras in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924, and 1925; to Cuba in 1906, 1912, and 1917; to Nicaragua in 1907, 1910 and 1912; to the Dominican Republic in 1903, 1914 and 1916; to Haiti in 1914; to Panama in 1908, 1912, 1918, 1921 and 1925; to Mexico in 1914; and to Guatemala in 1920. The only reason it did not intervene more frequently was that it often stayed, occupying countries for extended periods of time: Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933, Haiti from 1914 to 1933, the Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1924, Cuba from 1917 to 1922, and Panama from 1918 to 1920.

Honduras was dominated first by the Spanish, then by the British and then by the Americans. In 1907 the US intervened militarily and installed the supine government of Manuel Bonilla. United Fruit increased its holdings from 14,000 acres in 1918 to 61,000 in 1922, to 88,000 in 1924. In 1929 United Fruit bought up most of the remaining banana plantations. US bankers controlled Honduras' enormous debt, and the people of Honduras have remained impoverished ever since. In 1910 US marines under the command of Major General Smedley Butler intervened in Nicaragua to establish a government friendly to US interests, killing 2000 Nicaraguan rebels in the process. He wrote to his wife: "It is terrible that we should be losing so many men fighting the battles of these damned spigs - all because Brown Brothers (an international banking firm) has some money down here."

In 1922, The Nation ran a scathing editorial titled "The Republic of Brown Bros.," which echoed Butler's assertion that the marines were there to do Brown Bros. bidding. The piece detailed how the bankers had systematically secured control over Nicaragua's customs, railroad, national bank, and internal revenues with "the state department in Washington and the American minister in Managua acting as private agents for these bankers, using American marines when necessary to impose their will." Augusto Sandino was among the many Nicaraguans committed to throwing off the yoke of US tyranny in their country. Sandino was captured and executed by Anastasio Somoza who brutally ran the government until he was overthrown by the Sandinista revolutionary movement triggering another war with the Reagan administration.

In General Smedley Butler's book War is a Racket, he wrote "During (my time in military service) I spent my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped to make Mexico ... safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. During those years I had ... a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do is operate his rackets in three districts. I operated on three continents."

... exerpted from The Untold History of the United States by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick

Off the Top of My Head

The Good Things the Biden Administration is Doing That You Never Hear About

by John Lawrence

Even CNN goes on and on trying to create excitement over the differences withing the Democratic Party between the Moderates and the Progressives without talking about 3 great things the Biden Administration has done recently. They are

(1) EPA will slash the use and production of hydrofluorocarbons which one of the most toxic of greenhouse gasses — often found to be leaking from U.S. supermarket freezers — by 85 percent over the next 15 years; (2) the US will end its involvement in the war in Yemen and (3) the US has recently exchanged prisoners with China involving Huawei Technologies’ chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou. Instead of touting these very significant accomplishments, CNN goes on and on trying to create excitement over the divisions within the Democratic party and Biden's lowering approval ratings. So I say to CNN: so what, who cares? Approval ratings mean Nada. Any President is presented with situations not of his own making and the government agencies tasked with responding to said situations don't always do it in the best possible fashion. Case in point: the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The significant point is that he ended it. Let's move on.

The New York Times reported:

A top executive and daughter of the founder of the Chinese tech giant Huawei was arrested on Saturday in Canada at the request of the United States, in a move likely to escalate tensions between the two countries at a delicate moment.

The arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer, unfolded on the same night that President Trump and President Xi Jinping of China dined together in Buenos Aires and agreed to a 90-day trade truce. The two countries are set to begin tense negotiations in hopes of ending a trade war that has been pummeling both economies.

So Biden is still unwinding some of Trump's self-inflicted messes. At a time when cooperation with China is imperative in order to prevent the worst exigencies of global warming, arresting a top Chinese executive was not likely to help. Releasing her is.

The Washington Post reported:

The Biden administration finalized its first new climate rule Thursday, slashing the use of powerful greenhouse gases widely used in home refrigerators and air conditioners and often found to be leaking from U.S. supermarket freezers.

The regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency establishes a program to cut the use and production of chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons by 85 percent over the next 15 years.

Curbing these super-pollutants is a rare climate issue with broad bipartisan support. When emitted, the chemicals can warm the planet at a rate hundreds to thousands of times higher than carbon dioxide. The new rule implements a law passed by Congress last year.

White House officials said the new rule tackles global warming while supporting jobs to manufacture new alternatives.

The Biden administration is committed to doing good work on precventing and mitigating cimate cange. This is just another example the likes of which frequently go unbreported in the mass media because it doesn't creat the necessary excitement to support all their advertisers of which CNN has tons who come on the tube for 4 and a half minutes after every few minutes of "news." CNN must be making a forune and it show since they have money to support the making of CNN "films" on a weekly basis.

Common Dreams reported:

Anti-war groups on Thursday welcomed the U.S. House's passage of an amendment to the annual defense bill that would cut off the flow to Saudi Arabia of U.S. logistical support and weapons "that are bombing civilians" in Yemen. "This is BIG," tweeted the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) following the afternoon 219-207 vote, which fell largely along party lines, with just 11 Democrats voting "no." At issue was Rep. Ro Khanna's (D-Calif.) amendment to H.R. 4350, the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It's one of dozens of amendments to the NDAA under consideration by the House this week. According to Khanna, the vote "sent a clear message to the Saudis: end the bombing in Yemen and lift the blockade." Speaking on the House floor Wednesday, he made a succinct case for why the measure is so needed.  Khanna said his amendment "would end all U.S. logistical support and transfer of spare parts for Saudi warplanes that are bombing Yemen, that are bombing schools, that are killing children, that are bombing civilians in the largest humanitarian crisis around the world."

Back in February Biden had ended at least some of the support for that war as reported by the New York Times:

It didn’t happen in 2016, after a Saudi jet had dropped American-made bombs on a funeral in the Yemeni capital, Sana, killing more than 140 people. It didn’t happen in 2018, after a Saudi jet hit a Yemeni school bus with an American-made bomb, killing 44 boys on a field trip. But on Thursday, nearly six years after Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies launched a punishing military intervention in the Arab world’s poorest country, President Biden announced that he was ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, including some arms sales. “This war has to end,” Mr. Biden said, calling it a “humanitarian and strategic catastrophe.”

Now the Democrat controlled Congress has finalized this. Trump, of course, was excited about the prospect of sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia. He welcomed the influx of dollars into the US Treasury without caring a hoot about innocent Yemeni victims of the bombing with US made bombs. As an Uber driver I picked up once a Saudi pilot who was being trained over here. Now the Biden administration along with Democrats in Congress has put the kibosh on aiding and abeting Saudi Arabia in their nasty war. Bien has shown his dedication to peace and has made efforts to bring peace to the world in the recent prisoner exchange with China and with doing what he can to end war in Yemen.

Off the Top of My Head

Whoever Thought It Would Be This Difficult to End a War? A Good Reason Not to Start One.

by John Lawrence

Not Like the old days when you had a ceasefire, signed a peace treaty and everyone went home respectfully. George W Bush started two wars, the first of which - the Iraq war - was based on the lie that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction which he wasn't, and that he had something to do with 9/11 which he didn't. The second war in Afghanistan had some dubious plausibility that Osama bin Laden was stationed there. The fact of the matter is that you didn't need a land invasion of a country to get Bin Laden which Obama amply proved by sending in special ops forces to get him. Now we are faced with the messy and sticky problem of extracting ourselves from Afghanistan. Once done, Biden will be remembered for having the guts to actually do it. The messiness will be forgotten except for right wing pundits who will attempt to keep it alive.

Another question: why are approximately 20 high schools students from El Cajon, CA, where I happen to live, allowed to travel to a war zone to visit relatives? Aside from that the major question is can the Taliban really govern Afghanistan? Oh what tangled webs we weave! Afghanistan has been sucking at the American teat for 20 years. Now that we're soon to be gone, where will the money come from, the money that has kept the country running for 20 years? Or will Afghanistan become another basket case like so many Third World countries? Will China and Russia step in to throw them a lifeline? The Taliban are finally wising up that all the talent has been leaving the country on American evacuation flights. It seems like a large percentage of the Afghan population has been helping the Americans so we feel a moral obligation to get them out. But do the Taliban really want to kill them or do they just want their services as doctors, professors and other professionals? Do they really want to roll the clock back 500 years or are they smarter than that?

Meanwhile, the US just wants to get back to normal: overconsumption. We want a large share of the world's resources so we can overconsume and continue to pour carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. The largest percentage of greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere was put there by Americans. We just want to get back to normal and continue doing so. Just think of the consequences if we didn't continue to overconsume: our GDP would decline. Less consumption equals lower GDP. It's as simple as that. To reorient our society so that we underconsumed so that the rest of the world had enough food to eat and a roof over their heads is something that we as Americans have been programmed not even to consider in going about our daily lives. Our freedom, primarily, is the freedom to consume. That is about 50% of our population, those invested in the stock market and enjoying generational transfers of real estate assets, has the freedom to consume while about 50%, those doing the menial but necessary jobs are living paycheck to paycheck. Even college graduates, single mothers primarily, are still sleeping on their parents' couches because you can't make it on one salary in today's America particularly if you still have a lot of student loan debt to pay off.

Trump's base are those who not only say to hell with considering the planet as a whole or those in other countries, they say to hell with other Americans who disagree with their right not to get vaccinated and who might die from their very germs. How selfish can members of the human race be? What is civic duty if not pulling together and doing what's necessary to defeat our arch enemy: COVID? Especially when vaccinations are free. They'll even pay you to get one. Now we've reached the pass where you have to pay Americans to fight. Actually, we reached it years ago when they ended the draft.

Off the Top of My Head

Question: Who Won the Afghanistan War? Answer: Osama bin Laden

by John Lawrence

Bin Laden's stated purpose for attacking the US was to attract the US into a protracted war in the Middle East that would fritter away US blood and treasure. If bin Laden were alive today, after American expenditures of $2 trillion and 2000 American lives in Afghanistan, I think he would say "Mission Accomplished". However, most of that money never left the US. It was snatched up by the military-industrial complex - by the likes of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. According to a tape released by Al-Jazeera and reported by CNN, Osama said:

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript. He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers." "We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said. He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration." "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.

Well, bin Laden is only partially correct. It's impossible to bankrupt the US as Modern Monetary Theory has made clear. As a nation with a sovereign currency, the US can just have the Federal Reserve print as much money as needed to fight wars or for any other purpose. Actually, the $2 trillion spent by US taxpayers largely on weapons supplied by the military-industrial complex kept the economy humming quite nicely because war spending as well as selling weapons to other countries is contributive to the US economy.

The US should never have invaded the "nation" of Afghanistan at all. When bin Laden was based there, Afghanistan was only a partially governed country. Large parts of it were ungoverned and ungovernable. This is the space Al Qaeda occupied. The Taliban only governed part of the country. As President Obama demonstrated, it was possible to track bin Laden down and kill him in a special operation without having ever invaded a country and for very little cost. But that wasn't good enough for George W Bush. He wanted to be a war time President. Now 20 years later, the Taliban are in a position to rule over all of Afghanistan. It's Vietnam all over again. The US goes into a country, sets up a puppet government and leaves at some time at which the puppet government and its fighting force collapse after much expenditure of blood and treasure. Will we ever learn that indigenous forces will eventually win out?

The good news is that the US, having lost the war in Vietnam, is now one if its largest trading partners. Vietnam is currently our 13th largest goods trading partner with $77.5 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2019. Goods exports totaled $10.9 billion; goods imports totaled $66.6 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Vietnam was $55.8 billion in 2019. Perhaps, after the US loses the war in Afghanistan, Afghanistan can also normalize itself and become a trading partner with the US. This is the much preferred outcome compared to a war the US didn't lose in Korea which resulted in a stalemate. The result there is a nightmare for the US in the North which has nuclear weapons and missiles capable of reaching the US. If the US had lost that war as well, things would probably have normalized there without a northern dictator with a vendetta against the US and weapons pointed at us

Now the job for Biden is to get Americans and Afghanis who cooperated with us out of Afghanistan safely and discreetly. That's the purpose of the forces he recently sent back in. We don't want to repeat the humiliating hasty exit from Vietnam, and we owe it to those who cooperated with us to give them a safe harbor. Expect Little Afghanistans to sprout up in major American cities perhaps right next door to all the little Vietnams and Little Iraqs. Afghani restaurants will provide even more cultural diversity for the American palate.

Off the Top of My Head

Radicalized Veterans Supporting Trump in the Vanguard of January 6 Insurrection

by John Lawrence

Time magazine has an excellent article by Vera Bergengruen/Arab, Ala. and W.J. Hennigan/Washington, "From Combat to Conspiracy" detailing how radicalized veterans led the insurrection on January 6. I wrote about this previously in an article The Militarization of the American Mind. The fact of the matter is that the US military-industrial complex is composed not only of active military and corporations profiting from military hardware, but also a large number of civilians who are ex-military. The whole meme about honoring veterans - "Thank you for your service" - presupposes that these people are loyal Americans, not an out of control mob attempting to overthrow the government. Veterans are routinely honored at least in lip service and discounts, but the truth is far more disconcerting. These men and women have been processed through a system that has taught them not to think critically but to follow orders. They are more or less taught to espouse conservative politics.The Times article continues: "Of the more than 500 people arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, at least 1 in 10 was a current or former member of the U.S. military, according to a George Washington University analysis. Many had served in the protracted post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, returning home to a country that paid them lip service but moved on without much notice to the wars they had fought."

The insurrectionists' attitude is a reflection of the fact that the US is a militarized nation with over 800 bases in almost every country of the world. Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and others form the economic backbone of the nation. Is it any wonder then that at least a sizable minority of the nation's people favor an autocrat like Donald Trump to an experienced public servant like either Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden? When I worked in the military-industrial complex for General Dynamics and the Naval Electronics Laboratory, we were encouraged to vote Republican for fear our funding would decline under a Democratic administration and we would be RIFed (Reduction in Force-ed). This is how insidious the militarization of the American mind actually is. The Times article continues: "[One veteran] became involved with local chapters of the Oath Keepers in central Florida, whose recruiting materials reminded members that their oath was forever. “America’s veterans truly are like a sleeping giant. It is time to awaken them and fill them with a terrible resolve to defeat the domestic enemies of our Constitution,” says one chapter’s mission statement, according to documents reviewed by TIME. “If we can’t get the veterans to step up … to save our Republic, then how can we expect to get the rest of our people to do what must be done?”"

"As with other veterans whose involvement in right-wing groups like the Oath Keepers led them to the Capitol on Jan. 6, James’ descent into alleged extremism seemed less an expression of long-held political fervor than the desire to be part of a larger patriotic cause.

"Little data is kept on how often and why veterans get involved with extremist groups, but there are plenty of high-profile examples throughout American history. Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate army general, was the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. George Lincoln Rockwell, a Navy veteran, founded the American Nazi Party. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, both Army veterans, were convicted of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

"Founded by a former Army paratrooper in 2009, the Oath Keepers has quickly become one of America’s largest antigovernment extremist groups. It heavily recruits current and former military and law-enforcement members, encouraging them to see themselves as “the last line of defense against tyranny,” according to Oath Keepers websites. The group’s name refers to the oath sworn by members of the military and law enforcement “to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Some members falsely believe that the federal government has been taken over by “a cabal of elites actively trying to strip American citizens of their rights,” according to the FBI."

The military had become for many veterans a way of life that they missed after returning to civilian life. "“Militia groups have really familiar structures of command,” [author] Belew says. “They have structures of fraternal bonding, they have the organizational social elements that are very similar to the armed forces—and they’re built that way deliberately.

"Only now are federal authorities formally drawing up a strategy to handle the problem of military veterans’ joining extremist groups. The Biden Administration’s strategy to combat domestic terrorism includes plans to prevent veterans from being recruited by extremists. Currently, there are no efforts that focus on veterans once they have left service, despite evidence that they are increasingly the targets of online misinformation and extremist recruitment.

"Security analysts, veterans’ groups and experts say it will be vital to combat both the isolation and the fear-mongering that lead former service members to think of their fellow Americans as the enemy or, worse, take the law into their own hands. “It’s important not to fixate too much on the Oath Keepers as an organization but to think of them as a concrete example of a broader phenomenon in America,” says Sam Jackson, a homeland-security expert at the University of Albany who wrote a book on the group. The alleged radicalization of James, the growth of local chapters and the national organization should be “seen as a Russian nesting doll” that shows a much larger movement, he says, “of people who view America as being hijacked by internal and external enemies.” But little is likely to change unless more Americans come to agree on what it means to be an extremist and what it means to be a patriot."

Wake up, America, and smell the coffee. The militarization of the American mind reflects the militarization of America's purported purpose in the world which is to exert military force projected over the whole world. A person like exPresident George W Bush, who lied us into the war in Iraq, has the nerve to criticize Joe Biden for withdrawing American forces from Afghanistan after a 20 year futile war which accomplished nothing. We got Bin Laden in an operation which had nothing to do with boots on the ground in Afghanistan. He was in Pakistan. Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. The attitude of both civilian and military leaders from the top down legitimizes the US' continued military presence throughout the world and thoroughly indoctrinates American veterans and civilians in the military mindset. Until the US becomes a nation which is more interested in promoting development throughout the world and contributing to the betterment of peoples' lives throughout the world, a large number of Americans will favor right wing causes and conservative politics.

Off the Top of My Head

The Militarization of the American Mind

by John Lawrence

From seemingly rational thought processes that would make it impossible to end the war in Afghanistan to the insurrection at the Capitol to the "American movie" chock full of violence to the "well regulated militia" justification of gun proliferation, there is no end of rationalizations for the American military-industrial complex and gun culture on every level. Why does it come as a surprise to some journalists that many participants in the January 6 insurrection were current or ex military or police officers? They are exactly the ones with the mind set that believes Trump won the election, and that it was OK to do what their leader commanded them to do - invade the Capitol. The Generals who say that Biden shouldn't end the Afghanistan war on the grounds that the Kabul government will collapse are exactly the ones that argued we shouldn't end the Vietnam war because the South Vietnam government would collapse. Sure when the US sets up a puppet government and then props it up with money and a military presence, it probably will collapse when the US leaves that country which it never should have invaded in the first place. Afghanistan is Vietnam all over again or as Yogi Berra would say deja vu all over again.

The division among Americans into two tribes can be understood in terms of the two paths Americans take after high school graduation. There are those who go to college and there are those who go into the military. Those are basically the two choices high school graduates have. Those who go to college are taught to think critically to some extent, while those who go into the military are taught to obey orders. Unfortunately, Trump, as their Commander-in-Chief gave them the order to invade the Capitol, and they felt justified in following it because that is what their training led them to do. The choice to go into the Peace Corps or AmeriCorp is not really viable for most high school graduates because the perks of going into the military greatly exceed the perks of going into more peaceful pursuits, and they are less glorious. This is also a characteristic of the militarization of the American civilian mind. The military-industrial complex including, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, profits greatly from ongoing militarization and military thought processes, employs most of the college graduates and provides debate ending rationalizations for American military preparedness despite the fact that their extremely expensive hardware doesn't work half the time, and the threats to America are primarily cyber in nature as well as domestic terrorism.

The divide and contrast between high school graduates who go into the military and are taught to follow orders and those who go to college is reflected in the political divide between those on the right and those on the left.The military is all about symbolism including snappy uniforms, medals for valor in combat, saluting the flag and honoring themselves for their patriotism. On the left results in the improvement of the lives of the American people - and not just the elite civilian Officer's Corps - are more important than symbols of glory. They are more likely to question authority rather than unquestionably following orders. The January 6 insurrectionists were following Trump's orders at least that's what they were thinking in their own minds and by their own admission. I would like to see the FBI release to the public the number of insurrectionists who were military or former military. I bet that would be most of them, especially the males. A lot of ex military go into police work because of the familiarity with weaponry which they gained in the military. Since guns are a familiar way of life for them, naturally they become arch supporters of the Second Amendment, "well regulated" or not. They are used to classifying groups of people as either friendly or the enemy, and this mind set lends itself to police work.

In the final analysis, America is so used to being the world's policeman and profiting in various ways therefrom, that it is unthinkable that we should cooperate with our supposed adversaries to forestall global warming or to thwart future pandemics let alone the current one. We must always have an enemy or at least an adversary to justify our existence. A peaceful world in which everyone gets along and cooperates to solve the problems we earthlings face and have to deal with is unthinkable. Even though the US has a glut of vaccines while the rest of the world is begging for them, Americans feel free not to have their arms jabbed because after all they are free - free to be stupid, free to ignore the safety of other Americans and free to get infected with the virus and die taking others with them.. They just want to get back to normal entertaining themselves to death and ignoring totally any responsibility to their fellow citizens not to mention fellow citizens of the world, many of which they would like to maintain in their necessary roles as the enemy.

Dr. Fauci wondered why we couldn't all unite to fight the common enemy  - COVID - instead of fighting among ourselves about taking the vaccine. Uniting to fight a common enemy like COVID or climate change just isn't the way Americans and maybe humanity in general do things. We need to disagree even about things that are crucial for our continued existence as a species. As a nation we need an enemy whether it be Russia or China seemingly to justify our existence.

Off the Top of My Head

We Need to Change Our Spending Priorities Away From Military Adventurism and Toward Domestic Concerns

by John Lawrence

The military-industrial complex needs to be defunded, and the budgets of Homeland Security, the FBI and cybersecurity need to be augmented. We need to reconsider what "national security" really means especially in an era of climate change and pandemics. If the world's nations can not get along, climate change will end human civilization. The western nations, especially the US, need the cooperation of Russia and China in particular if climate change can even be mitigated to a less disastrous level than is already baked in the cake. Russia is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuel products, and will profit most from the thawing of the Arctic. If they are treated as pariahs, they will not be too concerned if the rest of the world becomes uninhabitable. Scientific American reported in an article entitled It's Time to Rein in Inflated Military Budgets:

"Despite the trillions of dollars Congress and successive administrations have lavished on the Pentagon since the turn of the century, the massive U.S. arsenal and fighting force deployed worldwide are powerless against grave, nonmilitary threats to national security—from a raging pandemic to the fact that tens of millions of Americans breathe foul air, drink tainted water, and struggle to pay for food, housing and health care.

"Such a reassessment is long overdue. No other country’s military outlays come close. In FY 2019, the Pentagon’s budget was nearly three times bigger than China’s defense spending and more than 10 times larger than Russia’s. All told, the U.S. military budget in 2019 exceeded the next 10 countries’ defense budgets combined and singlehandedly accounted for a hefty 38 percent of military spending worldwide."

The truth is that lobbyists for the military-industrial complex will lose money if a sane foreign and domestic policy is adopted. It is a hotbed of self interest which will come up with infinite rationales for continued military spending even when it is obvious to a disinterested observer that the Defense Department is just an unabashed money pit. The article continues;

"There are plenty of reasons to cut the Pentagon’s budget, but its track record of profligate spending is among the most obvious. If the Pentagon were a private corporation, gross mismanagement would have forced it into bankruptcy years ago. Dysfunctional internal controls, aided and abetted by years of lax congressional and administration oversight, have enabled it to waste tens of billions of dollars annually, and the last 20 years are littered with a parade of overpriced, botched and bungled projects.

"In just the first decade of this century, the Pentagon was forced to cancel a dozen ill-conceived, ineffective weapons programs that cost taxpayers $46 billion. They included the Future Combat Systems program, a fleet of networked high-tech vehicles that did not work; the Comanche helicopter, which—after 22 years in development—was never built; and the 40-ton Crusader artillery gun, which never even made it to the prototype stage.

"To put this example of managerial malfeasance in context, these canceled programs collectively cost more than the federal government spent on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the last five years.

At least the Pentagon killed those projects before they wasted any more money. All too often, it does not know when to pull the plug. The Army’s attempt to replace its outmoded Bradley tank is a case in point. Over the last 17 years, it has blown an estimated $22.9 billion on three flawed prototypes, but in February—just three weeks after rejecting the third failed design—it issued yet another request for proposals from defense contractors."

To put it bluntly many peoples' livelihoods and many corporation's profits are tied up with the continued exorbitant spending by the Federal government in support of the Defense Department, but Defense is a misnomer if the spending priorities are so out of wack compared to the actual threats to the American people. In short we are wasting money on so-called defense and letting the real threats go unfunded and undefended.

 

Off the Top of My Head

America to End Forever War in Afghanistan Thanks to Joe Biden

by John Lawrence, April 15, 2021

So far Biden is making all the right moves, and I'm sure he has more up his sleeve. He's playing 3 dimensional chess while the Republicans haven't even learned to play checkers yet. The military-industrial complex is crying, "Oh, no," because they justify the huge expenditures on them by the need for continuance of forever wars. They are aghast at the prospect that their trillion dollar annual budget will be inevitably reduced. It has become obvious that the biggest threat to the US is not international terrorism but domestic terrorism. The FBI and the National Guard will deal with that very nicely; they don't need the Pentagon. The FBI is doing a remarkable job cleaning up the terrorists who took part in the January 6 bungled coup attempt. Over 400 arrests and counting so far. The idiots self videoed their own arrest warrants.

The US spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. As an added service they also train the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and the Three Percenters. The military-industrial complex has done a lot to militarize the consciousnesses of young Americans, especially young non-college bound Americans. College graduates, especially in engineering, often end up, like I did, in the military-industrial complex working for companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman and General Dynamics. As a country we have been spending our money in all the wrong places, but the military-industrial complex wants to hang on to its prerogatives. When I was an employee of General Dynamics many years ago, they encouraged you to vote Republican. Otherwise their budgets might be cut and there might be a RIF (Reduction in Force). When the military-industrial complex is cut down to size, right sized as they say, the Republican party will lose its raison d'être, its justification, because that's all in reality that it stands for - large defense budgets and tax cuts for the wealthy.

If we really want to compete with China, then we should cut our defense budget down to the size of China's and spend our money in more constructive ways like China is doing like building infrastructure with its Belt and Road initiative. The only infrastructure the US has been doing in foreign countries has been the building of military bases of which there are approximately 800 in practically every country in the world. Meanwhile, China has one military base in a foreign country - in Djibouti! If the US wants to compete with China, it will take a page out of China's book and build infrastructure not military bases. China and the US need to cooperate on problems facing the whole earth like global warming. It's no consolation to win the competitive war while the home we all live in goes up in flames or drowns as the case may be.

Republicans want Biden to tell them how he's going to pay for all his ambitious social programs? Let's see. Let me count the ways. Taxes on the rich - that's a good one. Reduce the size of the military-industrial complex budget. Even better. Military contractors, among others, provide the campaign donations for the Republican party as long as the guys they are providing the financial jet fuel for are hardliners for a "strong" defense. Well now, maybe they should stand up for transferring the money to the FBI so they can deal with domestic terrorism instead of a useless military engaged in forever wars which are only killing civilians, destroying real estate and creating refugees. The world doesn't need an America which thinks it has the self-appointed job of being the world's policeman or moral arbiter. There is something in the Bible about taking the beam out of our own eye before telling our neighbor to take the mote out of theirs.

The US bloated military is wasting our money while militarizing the consciousness of our young men many of whom think their patriotism justifies invading and laying waste to our Capitol. Lawmakers were shocked, shocked to find out that the invaders of the People's House were present and former members of the military and police forces! Patriots! This is what happens when you define patriotism in military terms. The true patriots are the doctors and nurses, supermarket workers, delivery drivers, meat packers and others who put their lives at risk to help us get through this pandemic. True patriotism consists of reducing our military-industrial complex and defense budget to a reasonable size comparative with other countries and the real threats in the world while building up our infrastructure assets and social safety net programs as every other advanced country has already done. Joe Biden is on the road to doing this. May he prosper and prevail. And God bless our doctors and nurses.

Off the Top of My Head

If Republican Voters Want the Infrastructure Bill, Why Don't Republican Lawmakers?

by John Lawrence, April 12, 2021

Is this a failure of representative democracy? Polls show that a majority of Republican voters support Biden's infrastructure plan including the "care" components thereof. Yet Republican Senators are dead set against it, and the bill will probably not garner one Republican vote. It can still pass the Senate based on budget reconciliation which only requires a majority vote as long as all Democrats vote for it. Other Biden proposals involving voter's rights and gun control would require at least 10 Republican votes in the Senate under the current rules which involve the filibuster for non-budgetary items. In a representative democracy, a party should represent its voters. Otherwise, you don't really have a representative democracy which the US purports itself to be. So at present the US is in the position of being a government swerving back and forth from a representative democracy as long as Democrats control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency and a dictatorship of an elite when Republicans control either party or the Presidency.

The same applies to other issues like gun control, voter's rights and immigration which aren't subject to budgetary reconciliation and must garner 60 votes in the Senate. One of the minimum elements of democracy is majority rule. Because the filibuster is anti-majoritarian, this leaves the American democracy in the position of not really being a democracy at all in terms of non-budgetary items. So the US is on its way to being an authoritarian regime if Republicans control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. All that would be necessary is a President like Trump with authoritarian tendencies. Then the US government becomes a government that's all about the use of power to get its way internationally and domestically, not about making the world a better place. Unfortunately, this leaves the US in the eyes of other nations as being untrustworthy since there is no consistent policy going forward. Other countries have more consistent leadership and hence are considered more trustworthy.

China, on the other hand, has very consistent policies going far into the future. China isn't perfect but most of the Chinese people and the leadership are on the same wavelength. US leadership likes to make a big deal of the plight of the Uyghurs, a Chinese minority that represents less than 1% of the Chinese population. So it's pretty remarkable that the only problem China seems to have with a minority that resents Chinese leadership  is with a minority that composes 0.31% of the population. The US should be so lucky yet the US harps on the Chinese over this situation of which little is actually know by the western world. China has pilled 800 million people out of poverty since 1990, one of the outstanding feats in human history, yet the US leadership continues to harp about the Uyghurs while giving no credit to China on poverty reduction. During the same time period the wages of US workers has stagnated. Kishore Mahbubani, author of the book, "Has China Won" writes: "In contrast to America's stagnation, China's culture, self-concept, and morale are being transformed at a rapid pace - mostly for the better." Rather than China's recent success being an assessment of the comparative values of Marxist-Leninist doctrines vis a vis American democracy, The Chinese Communist Party could more appropriately be called the Chinese Civilization Party since it reflects the 2000 year history of China more than it does Communist ideology.

So the response of the US to the progress of China in the last 30 years, instead of congratulating them on their remarkable accomplishments, is to be fearful that China is getting ahead of us. Well, duh, if you compare a society that is mostly all on the same wavelength and making remarkable steps forward with one that is divided and experienced a certain segment almost accomplishing a coup d'etat in a recent insurrection which threatened the lives of lawmakers in the seat of democracy itself. However, rather than viewing the world situation as a competition between the US and China, a more fruitful approach would be to cooperate with China with regard to climate change and pandemics, two things that affect the whole world and which require fast action, not a lackadaisical approach in which maybe we'll cooperate down the road, but in the meantime we have to compete. There's no time for that. The planet earth has almost passed an inflection point after which there will be no more time available.

Off the Top of My Head

Republicans Are Restricting Voting Laws

by John Lawrence, February27, 2021

Republicans know that, if all eligible voters actually vote, they will lose. So they are busy at work at the state level to enact more restrictive voting laws making it as difficult as possible for people to vote. This will primarily affect Democratic voters, and they know that. They have been using voter suppression techniques ever since black people won the right to vote. They know that making voting easier will encourage more Democratic voters because many of them can't take a day off to go to the polls. So mail-in voting which was facilitated in many states because of the pandemic worked to their disadvantage. They are hurrying to correct that. Since Republicans control many state legislatures which set the voting rules, they are having a field day changing the laws so that they don't suffer any more humiliating defeats.

So Joe Biden needs to make the best of the two years he has during which Democrats control both Houses of Congress. Assuming that a Republican will be elected President in 2024, the nation will swerve to the right and disassemble all the Executive orders Biden has put in place. As a result of this division America will be seen, if it's not seen that way already, as unstable and inconsistent. World leaders will increasingly turn towards China for leadership because what China values most in consistency and stability. The US can't decide whether it wants to be a democracy or a republic. Democrats want a democracy in which it would seem appropriate that every citizen over the age of 18 should cast a vote. This should be made as easy and accessible as possible. Republicans, on the other hand, want a republic in which the levers of power are controlled by white Americans of European descant like they always have been and which the time honored methods of voter suppression of minorities and poor people remain fully in effect.

Paul Weyrich was an American conservative political activist and commentator, most notable for co-founding the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation, both conservative think tanks.He famously said: "So many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Quite a revealing quote. He identifies with "Christians" but chastens them that they shouldn't want everyone to vote. The question I ask is 'what would Jesus say?' Would Jesus want everyone to vote or not? Probably Jesus would be in favor of democracy as compared with a conservative minority that wants everything kept the way it has always been "from the beginning of our country." It makes me doubt the validity of the Christian religion as practiced by the "moral majority" of right wing Christians in this country. Jesus was for the poor and disenfranchised. They're not.

America can not remain a great country on the world stage if it swerves back and forth every two years between Democrats who genuinely want to make America and the world a better place and "America First" Republicans who don't give a hoot about the rest of the world except to dominate it with an outsized military establishment. The US is veering on the edge of autocracy if 74 million voters want Trump as their President in 2024 and Republicans are successful in suppressing 7 million voters because that was the margin between Biden and Trump. Trump did considerable damage not only to the US reputation vis a vis the rest of the world, but also within the US itself. It is a question of whether the US is a fact based country run by intelligent people or a no nothing country based on lies and conspiracy theories while the rich steal everything in sight and Republicans give their hoi polloi supporters political entertainment to keep their anger stoked. The rest of the world has looked to America as the Rock of Gibralter in the past because of its consistency and stability and its promotion of human rights (except the human rights having to do with economic rights). They may be looking now towards China for stability and consistency and be more concerned about intelligent leadership and economic human rights, especially if they observe that America's touting of human rights eliminates those of black people.

Off the Top of My Head

China Has Been Taking Over the World ... Peacefully

by John Lawrence, February 11, 2021

As Trump was retreating from multilateralism with his America First approach, China was winning friends and influencing people by building infrastruture in countries around the world with its Belt and Road initiative. This model put excess Chinese labor to work pulling their families out of poverty and set up the groundwork for increased trade and friendly relations with with other countries. Latest example: Latin America. Meanwhile, the US has not even been able to build infrastructure in its own country. Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) publishes The Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, which grades the current state of national infrastructure categories on a scale of A through F. In 2017, the U.S. infrastructure earned a D+ average. Stay tuned for a new report later this year. Infrastructure looms large because now it must be built out as green infrastructure replacing fossil fuel infrastructure.

In Latin America, America's so-called back yard, 19 countries have signed up for China's Belt and Road Initiative. The value of trade between China and Brazil, Latin America's largest country is $100 billion. China is South America's largest trading partner. Only Paraguay is not on board because they're the only South American country that recognizes Taiwan and not Beijing as the legitimate Chinese government. In 2019 Chinese companies invested $12.8 billion in Latin America concentrating on regional infrastructure such as ports, roads, dams and railways. Meanwhile, America was focused on its entertainment and consumerist economy, now partially defunct due to COVID. Chinese purchases of minerals and agricultural commodities helped South America get through the worst effects of the 2008 financial crisis. While the US had an orgy of financial speculation that created the 2008 financial crisis, China was powering on keeping its shoulder to the wheel, ear to the ground and nose to the grindstone building infrastructure and providing full employment for the Chinese people. As the US was relying on its military power to maintain its influence in the world, China was employing peaceful means to expand its influence. In 2020 the US spent $738 billion on defense, an additional $35 billion on nuclear weapons and and additional $80 billion on intelligence programs, none of which by the way provided intelligence on the assault on the Capitol although it had been discussed widely and openly on the web in prior weeks. Meanwhile, China's 2020 defense budget was $178 billion.

China's Cosco Shipping is building a new $3 billion port in Peru, and there are plans for a transcontinental railroad linking South America's Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Diplomatic opportunities for China have also been opened up due to COVID since China produces most of the world's PPE. The US was caught flat footed because it had to go hat in hand to China for PPE not much of which is manufactured domestically. Mask diplomacy has caused Washington to worry that China is gaining influence during the pandemic as China has provided PPE to 150 countries and 7 international organizations around the globe. While the US struggles to get vaccine into the arms of Americans, China has agreed to provide Pakistan with half a million doses of its Sinopharm vaccine free of charge. Time magazine reported:

"Yet China has won influence not by wielding sticks but by deftly distributing carrots. In Brazil, the region’s largest economy, bilateral trade with China rose from $2 billion in 2000 to $100 billion last year. Today, Brazil sends 30% of all exports to China, including 80% of its soybean crop and 60% of its iron ore. These entanglements are typically tightest with nations with goods to sell; China has supplied over $17 billion in financing to Argentina since 2007, according to Inter-American Dialogue, and is the world’s top importer of Argentine soybeans and beef.

"China is also now a preferred lender across the region. It hosts two international development banks–the Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Development Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank (NDB) in Shanghai–that are both expanding their remit across the region. “Infrastructure development has shrunk the distance between Asia and Latin America,” AIIB president Jin Liqun tells TIME in his Beijing headquarters."

While China was deftly distributing carrots, the US was wielding sticks with Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo bullying the rest of the world to get them to fall in line behind the US. The US needs to cooperate with China to stave off the next big crisis - global warming - not start a new Cold War in an effort to overtake or compete with China. For the most part China has already won any competition to speak of by gaining cooperation and friendship with the rest of the world and achieving the world's largest economy while the US still struggles with COVID, its economy in shambles. "No country has put itself in a better position to become the world's renewable energy superpower than China,"says a recent report by the Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation. In Brazil China's State Grid Corp. is the largest power generation and distribution company, while China's Three Gorges, the world's largest hydropower provider, controls 17 out of 48 hydro plants and 11 wind farms.

Joe Biden is doing his best to backtrack from Trump's disastrous America First policy, but American foreign policy is still on the track that it views China as a competitor rather than a nation that should be cooperated with in order to meet the challenge of global warming. Rather than gearing up for a military confrontation or quibbling and squabbling over human rights, the US must adopt a less belligerent foreign policy and learn to get along with the other nations of the world even those who have not been historic allies. The US should cut back on its bloated military and military-complex spending and devote the savings to virus research and green infrastructure implementation at home and around the world in cooperation with China and other nations.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump's Scattershot Foreign Policy

by John Lawrence, November

Trump never had a foreign policy per se just a lot of disconnected impulses and hunches some of which might have borne fruit if there had been some coherent plan for following up. Take Kim Jong Un for instance. I think it was a good thing that he managed to have a personal relationship with him. But nothing came of it because there was no attempt to continue the relationship with any concrete plan. Trump's latest move is to withdraw more troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. But he should have gone ahead and withdrawn them all and ended those ongoing disasters once and for all. Instead he leaves a "token" force there. This is the US military establishment's basic problem; they want a token force in every country of the world. If Trump wanted to be consistent, he would have removed the 50,000 troops from Germany and the 30,000 troops from South Korea. There is no need to occupy all these countries - at great expense to American taxpayers, I might add - since the US has excellent intelligence of all kinds including satellite and human intelligence so that it knows what's happening anywhere in the world and can react almost instantaneously if the need be. A troop presence is unnecessary. Remember the drones?

Trump made a point that NATO - meaning basically Germany - was not paying its fair share. They should have been paying more and doing more to defend themselves and not relying so much on the US. So far, so good. He did get Germany to increase its defense budget, but then he turns around and increases the US defense budget instead of reducing it commensurately. Plus he could have withdrawn the 50,000 US troops from Germany saving a ton of money. Trump's inconsistency is the hallmark of his foreign policy since to call it even a policy is a stretch. A policy connotes some kind of intelligent forethought and planning neither of which were in Trump's skill set.

As far as becoming friends with Vladimir Putin, I think this was a good thing. It is better to have warm personal relationships with the leaders of countries with whom we have potentially tense or adversarial relationships. It is important also not to let those leaders take advantage of or manipulate the US by means of these relationships. It's not clear if this was what was happening. Trump started out with China on the same wavelength which was also a good thing until he decided that it was in his interests to blame China for the "China virus" and start another cold war with China. It is extremely important to have good relationships with Russia and China at this point because cooperation on global warming is essential. Also China is going to come out of the pandemic with the world's leading economy. America will be relegated to number 2. It was more or less tied before the pandemic, but China got the pandemic under control and reopened its economy several months ago.

Trump's attitude towards Iran is not constructive. He withdrew from the JCPOA, and is now contemplating evidently a strike on Iran which would be disastrous. Despite Trump's possible personal business interests in Russia and/or China which led him to be initially more friendly towards those countries, I still think that his detente with them was a positive thing. The Democratic leadership on the other hand seems intent on demonizing Vladimir Putin instead of working with him in a more friendly fashion. I suspect that a Biden administration will try to have a more constructive and positive relationship with China than the Trump relationship devolved into. The boneheaded attempts by Trump to compete with China by demonizing Tik Tok and Huawei will come to an end, I hope. Again the importance of cooperation with regard to global warming between the world's two largest economies cannot be overstated.

Trump's delight in selling billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia was just abhorrent. Fanning the flames of war because it's good for the economy is reprehensible. Let us hope that the Biden administration takes a more constructive approach to reducing the US' occupation forces in many countries of the world, reducing the US footprint, ending finally by means of a total troop withdrawal the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and working cooperatively with the major countries of the world with whom somewhat adversarial relationships have been developing unfortunately. Cooperation and diplomacy should be the watchwords as we try to repair the harm that that US military forces have inflicted in the Middle East and elsewhere putting more emphasis on constructively rebuilding those countries and resettling the millions of refugees that these wars have caused.

'Great News for Progressives Around the World': International Applause After US Voters Fire Donald Trump

Published on Sunday, November 08, 2020

by Common Dreams

"It's time to get back to building bridges, not walls." Leaders from around the world congratulate the Democrats, but say much damage done by Trump requires repair.

by Jon Queally, staff writer

 

30 Comments

A young girl walks past Kenyan daily newspaper with headline "Donald Trump Fired" in the capital Nairobi on November 8, 2020. (Photo: Simon Maina/AFP via Getty Images)

Celebrations took place across the globe and congratulations from world leaders for U.S. President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-election Kamala Harris poured in Saturday and into Sunday after the Democratic ticket was declared the decisive winner in the 2020 election and results showed that President Donald J. Trump had been soundly "fired" by the American people.

"Great news for progressives around the world that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have defeated Trump," tweeted former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn from the United Kingdom, one of America's longest and closest allies. "Let's work together internationally to build a better, fairer, greener, peaceful and more equal world."

From London, the city's progressive Mayor Sadiq Khan—who often clashed with Trump and denounced the U.S. president's racism—congratulated both Biden and Harris on their victory. "London looks forward to working with you," Khan tweeted. "It's time to get back to building bridges, not walls."

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden, who recently won a landslide reelection victory in her country, sent well-wishes to the incoming U.S. leaders.

"Congratulations President-elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on your victory in the U.S. presidential election," Arden declared in an Instagram post. "With so many issues facing the international community, your message of unity is one we share. New Zealand looks forward to working with you both!"

While Trump, as of this writing, has still refused to acknowledge his defeat or issue a concession, Slate's Ben Mathis-Lilley on Saturday explained that Biden's victory is quite decisive in historical terms:

Defeating a sitting United States president is an extraordinarily hard thing to do, but with the vote count mounting in his favor, Biden turns out to have done it with relative ease. Per current estimates, he will receive something like 51.3 percent of the national popular vote, 3 percentage points more than Hillary Clinton and a higher total than any candidate challenging an incumbent president since FDR got 57 percent against Herbert Hoover in 1932. That’s more than Ronald Reagan got (50.7 percent) in his 1980 win over Jimmy Carter, which is still (accurately!) heralded as a paradigm shift in American politics.

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, also congratulated the pair in a Sunday statement and urged the new U.S. administration to "strengthen the Palestinian-American relationship" as a way to foster "peace, stability, and security" throughout the Middle East region. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, tweeted: "Joe, we've had a long & warm personal relationship for nearly 40 years, and I know you as a great friend of Israel."

From Iran, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif—who criticized Trump relentlessly for imposing brutal sanctions on the Iranian people and pulling out of the international nuclear agreement that was implemented under the Obama-Biden administration—suggested it was a new day for future relations between the two nations. "The American people have spoken," said Zarif.

Separately, Iran's Vice-President Eshagh Jahangiri said his government hopes for "a change in the destructive policies of the United States, a return to the rule of law and international obligations, and respect for nations" now that Trump will soon be leaving the White House.

And President Hassan Rouhani said Sunday that Biden must work to repair the damage done by Trump and the betrayal committed against previous international commitments made by the United States.  

"An opportunity has arisen now for the next U.S. administration to make up for the past mistakes and return to the course of commitment to international obligations by respecting international principles," Rouhani said. "The Islamic Republic," he added, "considers constructive interaction with the world to be its strategy."

Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador took a more hesitant approach to the U.S. election results, indicating in a Saturday statement that he would withhold his congratulations until any legal challenges related to vote count were resolved or when the results are officially certified.

"With regard to the U.S. election, we are going to wait until all the legal matters have been resolved," López Obrador said at a news conference.  "I can't congratulate one candidate or the other. I want to wait until the electoral process is over."

Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta said the "emphatic win" by Biden and Harris in the U.S. was "a demonstration of Americans' confidence in the leadership credentials of the former vice-president." And in Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari said Trump's ouster arrived at "time of uncertainty and fear in world affairs" as he congratulated Biden. "His election," Buhari added, "is a reminder that democracy is the best form of government because it offers the people the opportunity to change their government by peaceful means."

But most people of the world—like most within the United States—have been able to see that Biden's win was decisive, and despite Trump's refusal to concede and his continued unhinged proclamations that he won when all the evidence shows he clearly lost, led to street celebrations both in the U.S. and abroad.

As Slate reports, fireworks erupted across Europe and people across the continent were queuing up for champagne at local shops and dancing in the streets.

---

Off the Top of My Head

There is No Such Thing as a National Solution to a Global Crisis

by John Lawrence, October 9, 2020

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation announced its 2020 Goalkeepers report with the above words. COVID-19 has killed more than 850,000 people worldwide. Every year until this one the world has made progress towards reducing poverty and disease. Notice the Gates foundation emphasis on the world as one coherent unified organism rather than just on US national boundaries. The pandemic knows no national boundaries. Until it's stamped out worldwide, the US is vulnerable. The foolishness of spending a trillion dollars a year on the US military which was powerless to do anything about the pandemic has been demonstrated. International cooperation is crucial to ending this pandemic, as well as others which are likely to follow, and reducing the conditions of poverty and disease in the world which breed war and terrorism. When will the US get its priorities straight?

The Goalkeepers report tracked 18 indicators included in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In recent years, the world has improved on every single one. This year, on the vast majority, we’ve regressed.There is also a worldwide recession that the military and military-industrial complex is powerless to do anything about. The US is not an island. Pandemics, global warming - these are problems affecting the whole world not just the US. Nations that have the resources need to assist other nations that don't have the resources. That means that the developed world has to help the developing world to combat these problems: disease, poverty, weaponization, global warming.

In 2015, 193 world leaders agreed to a series of 17 ambitious goals to end poverty, fight inequality, and stop climate change by 2030. The Global Goals are within our reach, but we must remain committed—embracing what works and addressing what doesn’t, while holding ourselves and others accountable. In 2016 President Trump dropped out of global cooperation with his America First policy. That has gotten the US nowhere. Whichever countries handle the pandemic intelligently are going to come out of the recession as world leaders. That won't be the US unless Joe Biden gets elected and is able to turn the shambles of Trump's response to the pandemic around.

The first and most important goal is ending poverty. Eradicating poverty is not a task of charity, it's an act of justice and the key to unlocking an enormous human potential. Still, nearly half of the world’s population lives in poverty, and lack of food and clean water is killing thousands every single day of the year. Together, we can feed the hungry, wipe out disease and give everyone in the world a chance to prosper and live a productive and rich life. The second goal is zero hunger. Hunger is the leading cause of death in the world. Our planet has provided us with tremendous resources, but unequal access and inefficient handling leaves millions of people malnourished. If we promote sustainable agriculture with modern technologies and fair distribution systems, we can sustain the whole world’s population and make sure that nobody will ever suffer from hunger again.

The third goal is good health and well-being. Over the last 15 years, the number of childhood deaths has been cut in half. This proves that it is possible to win the fight against almost every disease. Still, we are spending an astonishing amount of money and resources on treating illnesses that are surprisingly easy to prevent. The new goal for worldwide Good Health promotes healthy lifestyles, preventive measures and modern, efficient healthcare for everyone. The fourth goal is quality education. Education liberates the intellect, unlocks the imagination and is fundamental for self-respect. It is the key to prosperity and opens a world of opportunities, making it possible for each of us to contribute to a progressive, healthy society. Learning benefits every human being and should be available to all.

The fifth goal is gender equality. Gender bias is undermining our social fabric and devalues all of us. It is not just a human rights issue; it is a tremendous waste of the world’s human potential. By denying women equal rights, we deny half the population a chance to live life at its fullest. Political, economic and social equality for women will benefit all the world’s citizens. Together we can eradicate prejudice and work for equal rights and respect for all. The sixth goal is clean water and sanitation. This will require major infrastructure development. It's not rocket science. The techniques involved are well known in the developed world. One in three people live without sanitation. This is causing unnecessary disease and death. Although huge strides have been made with access to clean drinking water, lack of sanitation is undermining these advances. If we provide affordable equipment and education in hygiene practices, we can stop this senseless suffering and loss of life.

Actually I would put clean water and sanitation right up there with ending poverty. It would put an end to many of the diseases that occur in the underdeveloped world. The emphasis on healthy living and basic creature comforts needs to spearhead the use of resources worldwide. That means that developed nations have to give back to the underdeveloped ones instead of putting their further enjoyment and well being first which is the gist of America First. Global cooperation to combat global problems needs to take precedence over preparations for war and bullying other nations by the most powerful ones. The negligence and incompetence with which Trump has treated the COVID pandemic, the withdrawal of the US from universal institutions, almost assures that the US will assume a secondary status in the world unless the next administration can make up for the damage Trump has done and set us on a new and more constructive course.

Off the Top of My Head

Tikked Off by TikTok?

by John Lawrence, August 4, 2020

The latest salvo in Trump's Cold War Against China is his insistence that market economics are passe. Trump is interfering in the free market economy in order to penalize a Chinese corporation that evidently has outcompeted its American counterparts. TikTok, beloved by American teenagers, is a social media app. It is now being banned from the US by an American President. Free speech? Only applies to Americans within America in very limited circumstances. For instance, you can't pass out fliers on private property. The New York Times says that TikTok is known for "hosting short videos where teenagers, celebrities and creators often dance or lip-sync to viral audio clips. It all seems innocuous, fun and sometimes even silly."

TikTok may be innocuous and silly, but it is a threat to Facebook and other US based apps which are losing market share to TikTok. This is all reminiscent of Trump's tirade against Huawei going as far as to sanction any country bold enough to defy American wishes and do business with them. Trump's trumped up charges include that TikTok has a "backdoor" which allows the nefarious Chinese Communist government to snoop or even to do other nefarious things like plant viruses or interfere in American elections. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that there is any such backdoor or that the Communist Chinese government has any ability whatsoever to control or interfere with TikTok's operations. TikTok is owned by a Chinese corporation - ByteDance.

The US government, probably also including a future Biden administration, is very worried that China Inc. is in the process of outcompeting America Inc. China is pulling ahead of the US both in terms of its economy and in terms of its influence in the world. Ironically, China is outcompeting the US because China is, at least economically, a capitalist nation. It may have a different form of capitalism than does the US, but it is capitalist nonetheless. Politically it may be communist, but economically it is capitalist which brings up the conundrum that most countries of the world are competing and interacting in a worldwide capitalist economic system. This presents a major problem for the US government which is resorting to throwing roadblocks in the way of companies which are outcompeting American companies.

There are problems regarding the US-China relationship which should be ironed out by diplomacy. Instead the Trump administration shoots from the hip and bases its foreign policy on Trump's whims and prognostications. Trump doesn't need verifiable data to indicate the nature of reality. He just shoots from the hip as if whatever pops into his head represents the actual state of affairs in the real world. The US is making a big mistake. The climate change crisis, not to mention the coronavirus pandemic, requires that the major countries of the world cooperate, not antagonize each other. Kishore Mahbuboni, author of "Has China Won?" writes:

Of the world's three largest democracies, two are Asian: India and Indonesia. Neither the Indian nor Indonesian democracies feel threatened in any way by Chinese ideology. Neither do most European democracies feel threatened. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is not trying to challenge or threaten American ideology. By treating the new China challenge as akin to the old Soviet strategy, America is making the classic strategic mistake of fighting tomorrow's war with yesterday's strategies. Are American strategic thinkers capable of developing new analytical frameworks to capture the essence of the competition with China?

Evidently not. The US needs a new paradigm to justify spending a trillion dollars a year on its military-industrial complex. Therefore, it needs to gin up tensions with China and/or Russia. Instead of using diplomacy to try and create peace and cooperation in the world, the US, at least under Pompeo and Trump, do their best to increase tension and rivalry. Let's hope that the Biden administration will take a different approach. If they don't, the work that needs to be done with respect to climate change will go by the wayside, and the earth probably will not be inhabitable for future generations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Off the Top of My Head

If Women Ruled the World, We'd Probably All Be Better Off

by John Lawrence, July 24, 2020

Number 1. There would be much less war. War is a man's game. It's testosterone fueled. Men want the glory heaped on them for having been in a war. Number 2. Since women have historically had the role of caregivers, they would probably have much more empathy for the poor and vulnerable especially poor and vulnerable children. They wouldn't be so obsessed with having a powerful war machine under their control. The President of the United States never wants to look weak, and, as Commander-in-Chief, revels in the power under his command. That's why he always wants to increase the defense budget. Even Trump, who campaigned on getting the US out of futile wars, can't resist the urge to have even more military power at his disposal and is spending more on the military budget. A woman as President would probably not feel the need not to look weak. Her priorities might be more oriented towards curing the ills affecting humankind which are related to poverty, health and education.

There has never been a period in human history in which there has not been a war or the threat of war. World War 1 was started for no good reason whatsoever. It makes no sense that the assassination of a minor Serbian official could have caused the devastation involved in the First World War. It was so bad that the First World War was called the War to End All Wars. President Woodrow Wilson called it "the war to make the world safe for democracy." English soldiers wanted to cover themselves with glory and then be home in time for Christmas. Instead many of them died miserable deaths in muddy trenches breathing mustard gas. The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I, was around 40 million. There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The total number of deaths included 9.7 million military personnel and about 10 million civilians. European civilization before WW 1 was very advanced. All that was destroyed essentially by male testosterone and pride.

Despite the best intentions of Wilson and others that there would never be another war especially one that caused the devastation of WW 1, just a few years later we had World War 2. Wilson established the League of Nations, a precursor of the United Nations, a noble effort which, however, did nothing to prevent World War 2. The League of Nations was the first worldwide intergovernmental organization whose mission was to maintain world peace. It didn't. President Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role as the leading architect of the League. Despite Wilson's leadership, the United States never joined the League. So much for diplomacy, negotiation and arbitration. War has been primarily conducted by males whose testosterone directed anger, lack of empathy and quest for glory have led them in the direction of war. Peace after all is boring.

Now even in the midst of a pandemic which affects the whole world, you might think it would be a moment when the whole world comes together. Instead Trump and his chief warmonger, Mike Pompeo, are trying to weaponize the coronavirus and start a cold war with China who the US has decided is its chief rival. Instead of cooperation, Pompeo has decided a better policy is to exacerbate tensions with China as much as possible. CNBC reported:

Top officials of the World Health Organization on Thursday slammed “unacceptable” comments made by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who alleged that China had co-opted the WHO.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the claims made Tuesday in London by Pompeo that China had “co-opted international institutions like the World Health Organization” were untrue and a distraction from the global coronavirus pandemic response.

“The comments are untrue and unacceptable and without any foundation for that matter,” Tedros said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Gevena headquarters on Thursday. “WHO will not be distracted by these comments and we don’t want the international community also to be distracted.”

Tedros has repeatedly defended the WHO against criticism of its response to the coronavirus. U.S. President Donald Trump and others have alleged the U.N. health agency has a favorable relationship with China, where the virus emerged at the end  of 2019. Tedros reiterated comments on Thursday that the politicization of the pandemic is one of the greatest threats to the global response.

Pompeo wants his cold war with China because this is the only way he knows to do diplomacy as, supposedly, America's top diplomat. He's not a diplomat. A diplomat would not try to deliberately provoke another country. Now the US has turned its attention from Russia to China as America's main bogieman. They do not even try to be peace makers or negotiators. Conciliation and cooperation are not words in their vocabulary. Maybe Pompeo has his eyes on a lucrative job in the military-industrial complex after he is out of his job as Secretary of State. So his interest is in justifying America's immense defense budget by starting a cold war which might even become a hot war. But a hot war is not even necessary to justify outsize defense budgets. A cold war will do very nicely, thank you very much.

Meanwhile many Americans are on the verge of homelessness. They will swell the ranks of the 500,000 who are already homeless. While Congress argues over the next bailout package, people are losing their jobs, their businesses, their health care and their homes. A bailout package could pay people's mortgages, rents and employee salaries for the rest of the year until, hopefully, a vaccine is discovered. That way the most economic damage could be averted. But it will probably be a paltry cash sum that will do little to protect the great majority of Americans.

What Stephanie Kelton points out in her book, Deficits Don't Matter, is that, well, they don't matter so a bailout 100 times the size of the projected bailout would not be a problem and would never have to be repaid since the US dollar is a sovereign currency. US debt can just be disappeared on the Fed's balance sheet. So both conservatives and liberals can rejoice. There's no reason not to have massive tax cuts as well as massive increases to the Health and Human Services budget. Wow, finally a cause for celebration. We can have it both ways. Now if Americans can only realize this and climb aboard the gravy train. There are some restrictions, however, as Ms. Kelton points out.

The biggest question that people asked Bernie Sanders with his ambitious social programs like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal is "How ya going to pay for it?" Stephanie Kelton has the answer and now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex is getting on board. Ocasio-Cortez also said that Modern Monetary Theory, which holds that the government doesn't need to balance the budget and that budget surpluses actually hurt the economy, "absolutely" needed to be "a larger part of our conversation."

Off the Top of My Head

It's Out of Control

by John Lawrence, July 19, 2020

The Trump policy is now clear: Let 'er rip. They are not going to spend any more money on testing, contract tracing and the CDC. The Obama administration had a plan in place to deal with a future pandemic. Trump did away with it, pulled the CDC out of China, withdrew the US from the World Health Organization. He is willing to sacrifice about 2% of the American people to get his economy back on the road before the election and hope that a vaccine will soon be available which would solve all his reelection problems. It's not going to work.

Biden has better plans not only for the pandemic, but also for the economy. His foreign policy, however, vis a vis China is still stuck in an antagonistic, competitive stance. It should be clear now that the major problems in the world including climate change in addition to the pandemic can only be resolved by cooperation, not competition. First of all the US is in no position to try and outcompete China. Both countries were essentially tied for the world's largest economy before the pandemic. Now China will be pulling ahead while the US languishes due to Trump's disastrous response to the pandemic. Instead of quibbling with China over the South China Sea, Hong Kong and the Uighuers, issues which amount to judging China's internal affairs and/or affairs in China's immediate territory, the US essentially should mind its own business and let China resolve the situations with its neighbors. There is much that China could criticize about America's internal affairs concerning human rights including both political and economic rights - #BlackLivesMatter, for instance. It is not constructive to be criticizing another country's internal affairs when a more constructive, cooperative and diplomatic approach could resolve the major issues between the countries instead of harping on issues within a country that don't affect the US at all.

China has achieved a lot in recent history even though it is a 5000 year old civilization, much older than either America or Europe. Disrespecting China at a time when China is actually becoming the most respected and dominant world player could be a disaster for America and also the whole world. If the world is to solve the climate change situation, all the world's players especially the most powerful and leading nations, must be on board, not indulging in criticism of one another. China is willing to do that. Is the US under either Trump or Biden?

There are seemingly intractable problems in every country of the world including the US and China. Working together, however, instead of alienating each other is something that is absolutely necessary at this time in human and world history. Otherwise, whoever wins the battle will surely lose the war as far as climate change is concerned. Other problems are trivial by comparison. It would be just like the human race to harp at each other while the planet Earth goes up in flames. Sorry but that's my opinion based on human history so far. Will the so-called 'better angels' of humanity rise up and do an about face with regards to that history?

Off the Top of My Head

Defund the Police ... Defund the Military

by John Lawrence, June 11, 2020

Police have been given jobs social workers should be doing. They've criminalized everything from homelessness to mental illness to drug addiction. That's what defunding the police is all about. They should hire more social workers and less police. The police are asked to do a lot more than what police work should be all about. So has the military. Every problem overseas, many of which could be solved by teachers, social workers and doctors has been looked at as a problem for the military to solve. Many of these problems derive from the fact that people are in dire poverty. They need help building schools, houses, sanitation systems. Instead we send the military in to bomb them just as we send the police in at home to take them to jail by any means necessary.

We glorify police work with all kinds of TV shows just as we glorify the military. No one ever glorifies the Peace Corps though, and, if they were sent in more often, there would be more positive results. Instead of helping people, the first thought of American leaders is to send in the police or the military. The Washington Post reported:

To fix policing, we must first recognize how much we have come to over-rely on law enforcement. We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse. We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill. We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.

Police themselves often complain about having to “do too much,” including handling social problems for which they are ill-equipped. Some have been vocal about the need to decriminalize social problems and take police out of the equation. It is clear that we must reimagine the role they play in public safety.

Everything that could be said about the police could be said about the military. Instead of helping people overseas to escape from the poverty they experience, we police them instead. What a novel idea to spend less on the military and more on the Peace Corps. Let's reimagine the role they play in public safety. Policing has been the primary vehicle for using violence to perpetuate the unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people that has been with us since slavery. The military has been the primary vehicle to perpetuate American control over black and brown bodies in other parts of the world.

The Peace Corps budget is $410.5 million. The military budget is $934 billion. The military budget covers the DoD, overseas contingency operations, the VA, Homeland Security, the State Department, and many others that involve national security. By contrast in 2003, the military budget was less than half that - $437.4 billion. The US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. If the Soviet Union collapsed because of overspending on the Cold War, the US is in danger of collapse from overspending on its military when it is not even engaged in a major war. Overspending on the military is just a jobs program that Congress will not curtail. Trump for all his bluster about wanting our NATO allies to spend more on defense, nevertheless, authorized a $34 billion increase in military spending for 2020. Meanwhile, China, the world's second largest spender on its military is spending $178.2 billion in 2020 while Russia spends a mere $70 billion.

The U.S. spends some $100 billion annually on policing — most of it coming from local budgets — and an additional $80 billion on incarceration, according to a detailed 2017 report by the Center for Popular Democracy. In cities across the country, policing alone can take up anything between a third and 60 percent of the entire annual budget. Many major cities spend as much as 40 percent of their municipal budgets on policing, leaving a dwindling pool of resources for poverty prevention, infrastructure and everything else. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated this dynamic: Cities facing steep revenue declines are trying to decide which services to cut to remain solvent, and mayors are often hesitant to cut law and order spending. Welfare spending has been on a long, uneven decline, while law and order spending ballooned almost unabated until about 2010, when it amounted to nearly 2.5 percent of national income. Since then, law and order spending has fallen to a hair under 2 percent, while welfare spending stands at about 0.8 percent of national income less than half what we spend on police.

The US domestic Peace Corps called AmeriCorps has a budget of $560 million. So the US spends a paltry $1 billion on its foreign and domestic Peace Corps while spending $180 billion on police and almost a trillion on its military. Without this spending the economy would surely collapse. Military and police jobs are jobs of last resort for non college educated youth. However, this could be turned around. This money could be spent on other pursuits like housing the homeless (Habitat for Humanity), social workers, teachers, sanitation systems in foreign countries lacking them, building green infrastructure (Green New Deal), eradicating poverty, education (giving "The Talk" as part of public school curriculum), sustainable agriculture, clean water, cleaning the oceans, cleaning the rivers and more.

While the US spends a huge amount of its budgets on police and military work, China is spending its budget building infrastructure all over the world with its Belt and Road initiative (BRI). Whatever you want to say about it, it represents peaceful development of countries outside of China while the US does nothing of the sort, preferring instead to police the world with its 800 military bases in more than 70 countries. So while the US presence outside the US is mainly military in nature, China's presence outside China is basically peaceful development. This development will also lead to economic advantages for China through increased trade.

China’s overall ambition for the BRI is staggering. To date, more than sixty countries—accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population—have signed on to projects or indicated an interest in doing so. Analysts estimate the largest so far to be the $68 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a collection of projects connecting China to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea. In total, China has already spent an estimated $200 billion on such efforts. Morgan Stanley has predicted China’s overall expenses over the life of the BRI could reach $1.2–1.3 trillion by 2027, though estimates on total investments vary.

The US has sought to demonize China's BRI and to create a second Cold War to justify its military expenditures. Throw Russia into the mix as well. The US wants to line up its group of allies in a potential contest versus China and its allies. However, many US purported allies are jumping ship as they read the tea leaves and realize that the US sees its role in the world and at home as mainly police work. Poverty alleviation is something the US doesn't do. This needs to change if we are ever to combat our common enemy, the coronavirus and climate change, and forget about creating a Second Cold War which will only drain US resources while China goes ahead building infrastructure and increasing trade.

 

Off the Top of My Head

Why the US Needs Allies and Enemies

by John Lawrence, May 28, 2020

The US needs allies because they need markets for Lockheed Martin's, Boeing's and Raytheon's military equipment. The US needs enemies because they constitute the rationale for selling US produced weapons to our allies. It's as simple as that.Lockheed Martin was in eastern Europe drumming up the market for its F-35 aircraft long before those countries became members of NATO. Then Lockheed Martin lobbyists lobbied Congress to accept these countries as NATO members so they could consummate those sales. Saudi Arabia is our designated ally in the middle east with enough money to buy US military equipment. Trump has bragged about selling it to them.

The Washington Post reported:

The Trump administration announced last week that it will declare an emergency to allow U.S. companies to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. That emergency circumvents Congress and the usual bureaucratic process for approving U.S. arms sales. By selling about $8 billion worth of precision-guided munitions and combat aircraft, President Trump advances his view of Saudi Arabia as a “great ally” of the United States.

Trump wants a strong economy. Selling billions of dollars worth of weaponry to our "allies" increases GDP. Trump doesn't even try to hide the correlation between selling weapons of war which are meant to kill people and destroy property and the fact that this is "good for the economy." So is a bloated military-industrial complex good for the economy. Look at all the jobs it creates! Lockheed Marin employs 110,000. Boeing employs 161,000. Northrup Grumman employs 70,000. Raytheon employs 67,000. General Dynamics employs 102,900. And there are many more contractors and subcontractors. They have divisions and subcontractors in every Congressional district guaranteeing that, even if Congress voted on the sale of arms, they would vote for every weapons program being developed just to create jobs in their district.

Just as the US needs allies to buy its weapons and create jobs, it needs enemies to justify the sale of all these arms. For many years Russia fulfilled that role. Now they are rapidly trying to create another Cold War with China since all the futile and useless wars in the Middle East are petering out. But there is a problem with starting a Cold War with China. For one thing China manufactures most of the consumer products America buys. This is because American corporations can produce their products more cheaply with Chinese labor. So starting a war, hot or cold, with China is like cutting off your hand to spite your foot. The other thing is that China has an economy which is as strong or stronger than the US economy. While the US economy is fading, China's is getting stronger, and the coronavirus pandemic is only accelerating that trend as China has had an effective response to it while the US has not. The Soviet Union never had as strong an economy as the US, and in the end it couldn't keep up with the production of weaponry and also have a viable consumer economy. China's middle class is larger than the US middle class.

The US needs to cooperate with China to solve the global warming problem instead of alienating them and creating an adversarial relationship. The world can't afford any more Cold Wars. China has built infrastructure all over the world creating friends and allies while the US can't even build or repair infrastructure in its own country. The US has flaunted its capitalist enterprise culture but corporate America was completely at a loss for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. Now is the time to rely less on free enterprise and more on a jobs program to rebuild America, and that can only be done by government, perhaps in cooperation with private enterprise, but government now has to take the leading role. We need a Green New Deal now more than ever.

Off the Top of My Head

Is a Pandemic More of a Threat to National Security Than War

by John Lawrence, May 16, 2020

Bill Gates thinks so. He's been warning world leaders and everyone else since his now famous Ted talk in 2015. However, the US has been spending over a trillion dollars a year on preparations for war, and nothing on preparations for a pandemic until one was upon us. Now it is costing trillions of dollars dwarfing the defense budget. Not to be outdone, the military-industrial complex is turning its attention to preparations for war with China which happens to be the current bogieman. China sort of snuck up on us while Lockheed Martin and others were promoting east European countries for membership in NATO with the incentive that they would locate defense plants there contributing to their economic development. They had been successful in locating subcontractors in every Congressional district so that they would have plenty of support from Congress for their projects such as the F-22 and the F-35. Now they would have subcontractors in places like Romania and Poland so that enthusiastic leaders in those countries would be cheerleading NATO membership.

So as they turn their attention towards China, Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors will no doubt be promoting location of defense plants in southeast Asia and the Pacific region. It has to be this way because Big Pharma does not have any interest in making vaccines or preparing for a pandemic. There's no money in it. That's why it falls to the lot of the Gates foundation, which doesn't need to make a profit, to spend their endowment supporting vaccine development and public health. The military-industrial complex has found a sure thing in the promotion of preparedness for war even though today it's becoming increasingly evident that the billions spent on hardware for war is money wasted when the real threats come from pandemics, global warming and extreme poverty in the world. The problem is there is no profit in providing solutions to these problems. Only people like Bill Gates who as private citizens have large sums of money to spend are even interested in finding and implementing solutions.

In March 2015, Mr. Gates warned in a widely watched TED Talk that an infectious disease pandemic posed a greater threat to the world than a nuclear war because nations have built so few defenses. He called for an international warning-and-response system with mobile units of medical personnel, rapid diagnostics, drug stockpiles and technologies to produce vaccines in months. So what did the world do in response: NOTHING. What has the world done in response to the global warming crisis: NOTHING. What has the world done to mitigate extreme poverty: NOTHING. What has the world done to foment war and aggravate tensions among nations: EVERYTHING.

At least 70.8 million people around the world have been forced to flee their homes. Among them are nearly 25.9 million refugees, over half of whom are under the age of 18. There are also millions of stateless people, who have been denied a nationality and lack access to basic rights such as education, health care, employment and freedom of movement. What is the US doing to ameliorate the situations of these people: NOTHING. These children growing up in these harsh conditions are the future haters of the US. They are the future ISIS and al Qaeda fighters. The US is spending trillions on preparations for war in order to fight these children when they grow up in a few short years. Climate change is only going to aggravate the conditions of the poorest people in the world.

Governor Cuomo has said that his approach to solving the pandemic crisis is based on science and data driven. This in and of itself puts him at odds with President Trump and all his anti-intellectual and conspiracy theory driven followers. Trump and the neocon Republicans have been profiting from whipping up anti-intellectual hysteria for years. Their vendetta against Hillary Clinton was because she was too competent, she was too smart. They preferred a dumb ass like Trump. It's this mentality along with a military establishment and military mindset that glorifies war that will probably mean that an armageddon of one sort or other - whether it is ongoing pandemics, climate change or nuclear war - will determine the fate of the earth and humanity.

Off the Top of My Head

A Missed Opportunity: World Peace

by John Lawrence, May 9, 2020

In 1989 the Berlin Wall came down largely because of the friendship and rapport between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. In return Secretary of State James Baker had promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move into eastern Europe. William D. Hartung writes in Prophets of War: "Back in 1989, at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, James Baker ... had promised Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev that if Moscow withdrew peacefully from eastern Europe, NATO would not move closer to Russia's borders by bringing former Soviet satellite states into the alliance." However, this did not stop the US from going back on its word.

It didn't deter the US Committee to Expand NATO, a right wing group of neocons who had direct connections with the largest player in the military-industrial complex - Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin was "suffering" from the reduction in defense expenditures in the early 1990s brought about by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Bruce Jackson a director of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) who had championed the Iraq war was Chairman of the US Committee to Expand NATO. He lobbied hard for Lockheed Martin exports of military equipment to Poland and other eastern European countries with the understanding that he would do whatever he could to have them admitted to NATO. His primary motivation though was to increase Lockheed Marin profits by finding new export markets.

"The committee spearheaded the effort to move elite opinion around to the view that bringing Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the alliance was a plus for US security, even if it undercut relations with Russia. So Gorbachev and Russia were shafted and lied to in order primarily to increase sales for Lockheed Martin. The pledge given by James Baker meant diddly-squat because Jackson and the Clinton administration were pushing in a direction directly counter to this pledge. Gorbachev had said "We are going to deprive you of an enemy." Not so fast, Mr Gorbachev. The Republican neocons and the military-industrial complex were not going to lose the profits they had made during the Cold War. They needed enemies in order that Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military contractors could prosper, and by God they were going to have them. So they decided to act provocatively with respect to Russia and went on a campaign to sell weapons to eastern Europe with the tacit quid pro quo that they would be admitted to NATO.

Lockheed CEO Norman Augustine even promised to support Romania's bid for NATO membership at the same time Romania was negotiating the purchase of an $82 million radar system from Lockheed Martin. So you see if there was a prospect for peace between the US and Russia, it had to be squashed by the military-industrial complex in order to ensure that Lockheed Martin's balance sheet would stay in good order. Lockheed Martin launched a marketing blitz in eastern and central America which they saw as a huge export market for military weaponry and fighter aircraft like the F-16s. Before the Polish deal could be consummated though Congress would have to vote to expand NATO. To that end Lockheed spent furiously to lobby key members of the Senate. In the 1995-96 election cycle alone Lockheed and its executives distributed $2.3 million in political donations, more than any other military contractor. NATO expansion passed the Senate by a vote of 81-19 because of the sales job done by the Clinton administration and the supporting efforts of people like Bruce Jackson and his organization - the US Committee to Expand NATO.

The US had a perfect opportunity created largely by Gorbachev to establish a peaceful relationship with Russia in the early 90s. But peaceful relations with Moscow would have threatened the profits of Lockheed Martin and other denizens of the military-industrial complex. In the end they won, and their neocon successors have done everything in their power to further disassemble diplomatic treaties limiting nuclear weapons and other weapons systems in order to provide lucrative markets for Lockheed Martin and others. They know that creating an arms race will greatly enhance Lockheed Martin's profits and their own bottom lines. They are doing everything they can to increase hostilities so Lockheed's profits will never again be threatened by an event like the Berlin wall coming down in 1989.

Off the Top of My Head

When The Pandemic Is Over, The World Must Come Together

by John Lawrence, April 28, 2020

These are the fateful words of Mikhail Gorbachev, Nobel Prize Laureate and the first and only President of the Soviet Union. Recently, he recalled how the threat of nuclear war was reduced by the treaties in the 1980s made possible by his friendly relationship with Ronald Reagan. Writing in Time magazine, he said, "The leaders of the U.S. and the Soviet Union declared that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought." Despite the fact that the Cold War was declared to be over, the neocons running foreign policy today have been doing their best to create another one. The pandemic has made it clear that there are more important challenges than U.S.-Russian rivalry, and that the world has more to gain by cooperating even with supposed enemies or rivals than it does by perpetuating idiotic animosities. We have common enemies that affect us all with the coronavirus pandemic being just one of them.

Gorbachev mentioned "poverty and inequality, the degradation of the environment, the depletion of the earth and the oceans." Global warming is an existential threat that must be addressed now or there won't be a habitable earth left to fight over. "We have so far failed to develop and implement strategies and goals common to all mankind." Not only that the U.S. under Trump has retreated from any kind of cooperation with the other nations of the earth even our supposed allies. Instead U.S. foreign policy has been based on ordering other nations around as if we were the supreme bully. Trump's latest blunder is to defund the World Health Organization (WHO) in the middle of a pandemic.

"Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, adopted by the U.N. in 2000, has been extremely uneven." The U.S. under Trump does not really support the U.N. in any way because it wants to be the ruler of nations not part of an organization that attempts to have a forum for the cooperation of nations. The United Nations Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000 commits world leaders to combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women. The Eight Millennium Development Goals are:

• to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;
• to achieve universal primary education;
• to promote gender equality and empower women;
• to reduce child mortality;
• to improve maternal health;
• to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases;
• to ensure environmental sustainability; and
• to develop a global partnership for development.

I had never even heard of the Eight Millennium Development Goals although I think I'm pretty well informed. All of the media time spent on Trump's self-serving bragging could have been better spent informing us about this WHO program. But instead the media spends its time either chastising Trump's stupidity or praising his glory depending on which channel you watch. He has changed from campaign rallies to hour long daily commercials for himself.

"What we urgently need now is a rethinking of the entire concept of security. Even after the end of the Cold War, it has been envisioned mostly in military terms." Yes, military hubris crowds out any prospect of peace let alone a prospect of eliminating extreme poverty. Bill Gates is singlehandedly doing his best to eliminate poverty and disease in the world. He basically is a one man United Nations surrogate. He presciently tried to warn us of the pandemic in a Ted talk. Now he is spending millions of his own money on developing a coronavirus vaccine. There are some good people in the world - even billionaires. That I am sure of. It's just that not a lot of them occupy positions of power in the U.S. government.

Gorbachev continued: "The overriding goal must be human security: providing food, water and a clean environment and caring for people's health. To achieve it, we have to develop strategies, make preparations, plan and create reserves. But all efforts will fail if nations continue to waste money by fueling the arms race. I'll never tire of repeating: we need to demilitarize world affairs, international politics and political thinking."

Gorbachev is calling on national leaders to cut military budgets by 10% to 15%. It is not enough. The mindset, even among Democrats, is that we need a huge military to defend ourselves from perceived threats and perceived enemies. They don't have the mindset that they could make the world a better place by defusing tensions among nations that they perceive as threats. It might start by apologizing to Iran for overthrowing their democratically elected leader Mossaddegh and installing the brutal Shah. That would go a long way to establishing a peaceful relationship with Iran. It could start there. Instead the U.S. only fuels tensions by applying sanctions and carrying on like the rest of the world should bow down to the almighty dollar.

Off the Top of My Head

Is the Coronavirus Interrupting Humanity’s Ability to Kill Itself?

by John Lawrence, April 16, 2020

Instead of spending a trillion dollars annually for the instruments of and preparations for war, perhaps we should have spent it on ventilators and PPE. If we're all in this together, does this mean all of humanity or only all of us Americans? Will getting back to normal mean getting back to war? Trump and Pompeo are a continuation of the neocon mentality of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle. These folks are never satisfied unless they have an enemy or a perceived enemy to deal with. If there's not one conveniently around, they'll go out of their way to create one. Then of course we'll need more military aircraft, more aircraft carriers, more smart missiles and more of the other implements of war. What, are we taking a break from war now that the coronavirus is occupying our attention?

Well, the coronavirus has had some good effects. There is less global warming. There hasn't been a recent school shooting. Air pollution is dropping rapidly in cities around the globe. Less fossil fuels are being taken out of the ground and consumed. People have been getting along quite nicely without crowding into sports and concert venues. Money isn't being wasted as flagrantly as it was before. Of course, that's bad for the economy in which money wasting contributes to the 70% consumer economy.

There is a renewed respect for the true heroes, not the armed forces, but the health care workers on the front lines. There is a realization that what is important is not American hegemony but the health and welfare of all the people in the world. As long as some are susceptible to the conditions creating ill health, a virus spawned anywhere, even in the poorest ghetto in Africa, can affect the whole world. The economic systems of the whole world can grind to a halt whether they be capitalistic, communistic or some variation or combination thereof.

Is there a renewed respect for cooperation instead of competition? The coronavirus is humbling. It doesn't respect power. Anyone from the richest and most powerful person in the world to the poorest and least powerful can be taken down by this virus. It has outsmarted and outwitted the ablest and the proudest among us. It has made us aware that we are all human and all susceptible no matter in which nation we live, no matter where we live anywhere in the world. It has made us aware of what is essential and what we can do without.

The pandemic is a dress rehearsal for what needs to be done to combat global warming, another pandemic that affects every human being in the whole world for generations to come. Unlike the coronavirus, global warming will not kill us in as rapid and dramatic a way, but it will kill us just as surely over a longer period of time. Instead of getting back to normal in terms of fossil fuel consumption and creating enemies as a justification for armaments buildups, let's get back to a new normal where priorities are realigned with the health and betterment of all people starting with the least among us. We need to make amends with out mother as well, Mother Earth that is.

Instead of creating and exacerbating relationships with our enemies, let us heal them instead. We were getting along just fine with Iran as long as the nuclear deal was in effect. Everyone was behaving. First, Trump opts out of that, and then goes out of his way to exacerbate tensions. Even with a pandemic affecting Iran to a great degree, the Trump administration has no pity on the average Iranian citizen. His and Pompeo's only concern is to totally wreck their economy with sanctions. Perhaps during a pandemic sanctions there should be a moratorium on sanctions. They are only making relations between the US and other countries, even friendly countries, worse.

The origin of the nasty relationship between the US and Iran was in the 1953 coup orchestrated by the CIA which overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and installed the Shah in his place. It was the first covert action by the United States to overthrow a democratically-elected government during peacetime. Maybe as a first step to restoring peaceful relations with Iran the US should formally apologize for betraying its own democratic values by ousting a democratically elected leader and installing a cruel dictator. By the way it was all about the fact that Mosaddegh wanted to nationalize Iran's oil. On Aug. 19, 2013, the CIA publicly admitted for the first time its involvement in the 1953 coup against Iran's elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. It still has not apologized though.

Off the Top of My Head

In the Age of Pandemic Has War Become a Luxury?

by John Lawrence, April 12, 2020

Saudi Arabia and Yemen have declared a cease fire. Sailors are becoming infected on aircraft carriers. War planning requires groupings of military people. So has war become a luxury we can no longer afford? Are we really "all in this together"? Does the pandemic require cooperation among all nations since the pandemic doesn't respect national borders? Will the pandemic, when it's over, have changed the way human beings conduct their affairs in the world or will we get back to business as usual. If the pandemic engenders cooperation instead of rivalry among the nations of the world, does this mean that we will all be socialists or communists? Does it even matter?

If the pandemic makes us realize that war is a useless exercise with few benefits, will the US military-industrial complex be defunded. Will the money then go to health care workers, to Peace Corps and AmeriCorps workers who will attempt to bring clean water and modern sanitary systems to developing countries? Will there be a push to create more sanitary conditions in the world so that pandemics don't get started? Plagues and pandemics before have motivated people to build modern sanitary systems in places like London and New York in the 19th century where urban populations in close proximity created the conditions of cholera and bubonic plague. Is homelessness a social situation we can no longer afford?

Will the meaning of 'essential services' become normalized in the economy post corinavirus? What then will be considered essential and what could we live without? As long as there is no vaccine for coronavirus, new cases will continue to crop up even after the economy has "reopened." The flu epidemic of 1918 lasted 10 months and had several spikes. We can expect more spikes in the current pandemic until there are widespread vaccinations available. So what is essential? Sports events? Cruises? Rock concerts? Movie theaters? Now with Netflix and Amazon prime we can watch movies at home. Any movie we want to see. I'm catching up on all the great movies I've missed over the years. Last night I watched "To Catch a Thief" with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly. Free on Amazon Prime. The fidelity  both video and audio was excellent on my smart TV. I have no need to go to a movie theater where I can't control the volume. Hint: they are too loud.

Perhaps now we can grasp the concept that cooperation among peoples and nations is more important than manufactured rivalries over some nation's form of government. Perhaps now we can grasp the concept that diplomacy is more important, getting along is more important and winning isn't everything. Maybe now public health and human rights can be seen as more important than having everyone pull themselves up only by their own bootstraps. Maybe we can get on with the business of cooperating to combat the real enemy - climate change and even future pandemics. Maybe we will bring the US infrastructure into the modern world with a Green New Deal. Maybe we can finally grow up and have a consensus about what is really important, what really matters. Maybe doctors, nurses, caregivers, and social workers will come to be seen as more important that Wall Street brokers, the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps as more important than the War Corps. As Governor Cuomo says, "Love will conquer all." Happy Easter.

Off the Top of My Head

Maybe the Shut Down of Non-Essential Businesses Should Be Made Permanent

by John Lawrence, March 27, 2020

As long as we have electricity, the internet, clean water, waste water disposal, full grocery markets, pharmacies, excellent health care, gas stations, trash collection and other essential businesses, perhaps the shut down of non-essential businesses is a good thing. Already it has cleaned up the environment and significantly reduced the emission of greenhouse gasses. What about all those unemployed people, you say? Put them to work in the Green New Deal building and repairing infrastructure throughout the country. If this COVID-19 thing lasts till January 20, 2021, I'm hoping President Joe Biden will do just that. And we should help build essential businesses in other parts of the world instead of engaging in military adventurism. Billions of people don't even have clean water, adequate sanitation, the internet, full grocery markets and other essential businesses.

Once these essential needs are taken care of for the entire world's population in such a way that GHG emissions are reduced to zero, then maybe some non-essential businesses could be reestablished. The pandemic goes to show that much of the US economy is based on non-essential businesses and the provision of non-essential goods and services. In fact not only are many of them non-essential, they are downright deleterious. Consider the gambling industry: downright deleterious. The movie and TV industry: about 70% deleterious. The fast food industry: 90% deleterious creating obesity and diabetes. Why isn't the school system educating people about nutrition? Many people have essentially a fast food diet. The food is cheap and ubiquitous, and people don't have time to create nutritious meals any more the way Moms used to when they didn't have to work to pay the mortgage and car payments.

The American way of life including may non-essential businesses is sickness producing. The profit oriented health care industry makes money off of sick people, not keeping people healthy. If everyone were healthy or were encouraged to lead healthy lifestyles, there would be far less sickness. But the stress induced by both spouses having to work leads to unhealthy lifestyles. Some families need 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. The children are also subjected to a competitively oriented style of learning in which they are forced to compete with other children to get good grades so they can get into the best colleges. Instead maybe they should be encouraged to think in terms of what they want to do in their lives which would be a service to society in addition to affording a comfortable living for themselves.

More businesses considered to be non-essential:

Theaters, Salons and Spas, Racetracks, Shopping malls, Bowling alleys, Sporting and Concert Venues, Liquor stores, Bars, Cruises, Golf Courses, Resorts, Hair and Nail Salons.

Highly polluting industries and activities which are non-essential:

Most airline travel, the cruise industry, the travel and tourism industry, most automobile travel (use mass transit instead), most of the trucking industry (use rail instead), the beef industry, the hog industry, agribusiness (encourage small organic farms instead), most military and military-industrial complex, the plastic industry, the fossil fuel industry.

In Coronavirus Will Change the World Permanently. Here’s How. Mark Lawrence Schrad writes:

America has long equated patriotism with the armed forces. But you can’t shoot a virus. Those on the frontlines against coronavirus aren’t conscripts, mercenaries or enlisted men; they are our doctors, nurses, pharmacists, teachers, caregivers, store clerks, utility workers, small-business owners and employees. Like Li Wenliang and the doctors of Wuhan, many are suddenly saddled with unfathomable tasks, compounded by an increased risk of contamination and death they never signed up for.

When all is said and done, perhaps we will recognize their sacrifice as true patriotism, saluting our doctors and nurses, genuflecting and saying, “Thank you for your service,” as we now do for military veterans. We will give them guaranteed health benefits and corporate discounts, and build statues and have holidays for this new class of people who sacrifice their health and their lives for ours. Perhaps, too, we will finally start to understand patriotism more as cultivating the health and life of your community, rather than blowing up someone else’s community. Maybe the de-militarization of American patriotism and love of community will be one of the benefits to come out of this whole awful mess.

The same sentiments hold true for teachers and other caregivers. People that take care of people and encourage people to have better lives are the true heroes. The Peace Corps and AmeriCorps should be the preeminent national services not the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines. We need to spread good will in the world by spades instead of bullying the rest of the world with US sanctions. We should develop the equivalent of China's Belt and Road initiative and start building clean water plants, sanitation plants, industries which decrease pollution and plastic trash in the ocean. We need to clean the environment around the world not contribute to dirtying it. We need to help bring home all the refugees in refugee camps and guarantee the safety and security of Latin Americans so they don't become migrants and refugees.

Off the Top of My Head

Civilization and Its Discontents

by John Lawrence, March 22, 2020

Are we becoming more or less civilized? What does civilization even mean? Doesn't it mean that there is less conflict and more harmony among all the 9 billion human beings that inhabit the world? Doesn't it also mean an increased knowledge about how to care for the planet which is our common home? I don't think it means more and more stuff. There is something to be said for material well-being, but, after a certain level has been achieved, further increase only represents gluttony especially if it is not more or less equally distributed among all the earth's population. Progress towards civilization means less conflict, less war, not more freedom. Freedom is a component but is not essential to civilization. Love and diplomacy are.

By any measure human society is becoming less civilized and more solipsistic. The emphasis on extreme individualism and ego-centrism in the US has meant that the US has gone from the world's savior after WW II to the world's dominant and ruling empire placing itself and its prerogatives above the welfare of the world's people. The slogan for the French revolution was "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" and it's France's motto to this day. Although the American and French revolutions happened at about the same time and were based on many similar values, the US totally forgot about the fraternité part. It was replaced with "every man for himself and "don't tread on me." This emphasis on individualism without a corresponding emphasis on compassion and social responsibility was increased during the Reagan and Alan Greenspan era. Greenspan was an acolyte of Ayn Rand who brought a flower arrangement depicting a dollar bill to her funeral. Rand was an extreme individualist whose views didn't recognize any other validity than that which was central to her own mind.

Extreme individualism has found its latest proponent in Donald Trump who might have been a character in one of Ayn Rand's novels, a hero whose only interest was himself and his own interests without any regard for anyone else. Trump has projected this philosophy onto an entire nation with his motto of "America First." However, his real motto is "Trump first." Fraternité or brotherhood has nothing to do with Reagan's or Greenspan's or Ayn Rand's thought processes and there is a direct line among them and their influence on the US turning a once compassionate nation into the equivalent of the Roman Empire, but, whereas the Romans only sought to rule Western Civilization, Trumpism and the American Empire seeks control over the entire planet.

In recent days even Trump has uttered the words "We're all in this together." That's nice to know Mr Trump, but it took a global pandemic for Trump to realize or give credence to this sentiment. However, there is another pandemic that makes the coronavirus pale by comparison, and that is global warming and climate change with respect to which Trump has never uttered the same words and is not likely to. Instead Trump and his Republican progenitors have consistently sought to make America the world's preeminent nation and ruler of the world.  Civilization has retreated since the high point of the FDR administration. Even Democratic administrations other than that of Jimmy Carter have triangulated with the devil.

I come back to fraternité. Wouldn't there have been more progress towards civilization if this word had been taken more seriously and not just among Americans or Frenchmen, but among all human beings in a globalized world. Globalism in terms of civilization should lead to peace on earth and a reasonable distribution of material goods instead of a US which hoards everything for itself (the hoarding of toilet paper is symbolic!) and tries to dominate other nations with its military and its economic prowess in terms of the dollar being the world's reserve currency. Since the dollar has been weaponized by its application to sanctions, other currencies are seeking equivalency and will probably soon have it if not dominancy.

It's taken a world wide pandemic to make US leaders realize that we are all in this together. When the pandemic subsides, will this be the takeaway? Will it mean an increase in civilization in terms of understanding and compassion for all peoples of the earth? Will it mean an increase in diplomacy and a reduction in weapon caches? Will it mean a reduction in the size and expenditures on the military-industrial complex? Will it mean some sense of humility instead of hubris on the part of US leaders? In other words will the coronavirus pandemic have resulted in an increase in civilization? Hope springs eternal, but don't bet on it.

Off the Top of My Head

Bernie Sanders Visited Russia on His Honeymoon, OMG!

by John Lawrence, February 28, 2020

Oh my, gracious goodness, that proves he's a communist that loves authoritarian dictators. However many other people visit Russia as exemplified by all the luxury cruises that are available. For instance, there is the Silversea Luxury Cruises to St Petersburg, the Viking Russia River Cruises, the Royal Caribbean cruise to St Petersburg. Also Celebrity Cruises which offers the following: "Once the capital of imperial Russia, St. Petersburg today is a creative hub full of art, culture, and national treasures waiting to be explored on a cruise to Russia. From breathtaking ballet and opera centers to fabulous palaces and cathedrals, the City of Tsars still feels every bit the royal city it once was."

One of the greatest museums in the world is the Hermitage in St Petersburg. Russia has one of the greatest cultural heritages of any European country. Writers such as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Pasternak; Composers such as Stravinsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev. Russian history is replete with great leaders like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. American conventional wisdom is all about Russia the Bad while ignoring all the reasons why someone would ever want to visit there. Russian ballet is world famous. Classical ballet masterpieces such as “Sleeping Beauty”, “The Nutcracker”and “Swan Lake” were written by Tchaikovsky, one of the world's great composers.

Art and architecture are good reasons to visit Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church held an incredible amount of power and prestige during the Czarist Era, and the impressive cathedrals in many Russian cities are a must see for anyone interested in religious history and architecture. The Russian Czars once ruled Russia for nearly 350 years. Their reign began with Ivan the Terrible and ended with Nicholas II.

The art collection in the St. Petersburg Hermitage Museum is enough to occupy you for days and that’s only one small part of all the art that you can see in Russia. Nearly every city houses at least one art museum with some amazing works. The Moscow Museum of Modern Art is the first Russian state museum featuring 20th and 21st-century art. It houses the largest collection of modern and contemporary Russian art in the nation. Also in Moscow, The Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts has one of the most extensive collections of Russian and foreign art from ancient to modern times. The Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts is comprised of six buildings in central Moscow.

Bernie Sanders is mostly a threat to American conventional wisdom which is xenophobic, narrow minded and inclined to the belief that once an enemy, always an enemy. It is important for America to have enemies in order to support the vast and expensive military-industrial complex and engage in competition for technological supremacy with the rest of the world in a kind of convoluted and perverted meritocracy. Competition to become the most peace loving country in the world is almost an oxymoron because hardly anyone can envision what competition for peace would be like. Maybe because it would be cooperation rather than competition. Let's compete with other nations to see who can be the most peace loving nation in the world.

Off the Top of My Head

Democratic Socialism in America

by John Lawrence, December 2, 2019

The Democratic Socialist period in America took place between the two gilded ages. The first gilded age was in the 1890s when you had incredible fortunes being made by Andrew Carnegie, Jay Gould, John Rockefeller and others. The second one is today when you have incredible fortunes being made by Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and others. In between was the Democratic Socialist era presided over by the Democratic administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But progress breeds poverty, and the first gilded age led to the Great Depression. His administration oversaw the tools that brought America out of the Great Depression. Tools like the Works Progress Administration which built schools and civic buildings all over America including San Diego's County Administration Building and the Wantage school where I attended as a child and where my Dad was fortunate enough to have gotten the principal's and later the superintendent's job.

But progress breeds poverty, and the first gilded age led to the Great Depression. FDR's vice President was Henry Wallace, a committed Democratic Socialist in the Bernie Sanders mold or rather Bernie Sanders is in his mold. He used the term "economic democracy." While vice President in 1942 he gave a speech at Madison Square Garden in New York City in which he said "The new democracy, the democracy of the common man, includes not only the Bill of Rights but also economic democracy, ethnic democracy, education democracy and democracy in the treatment of the sexes." In 1942 President Roosevelt delivered the Four Freedoms speech in which he declared that there should be not only freedom of speech and freedom of worship but freedom from want and freedom from fear. After WW II, these ideas which amounted to economic guarantees by government in addition to the guarantees provided by the Bill of Rights were embedded in the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights.

Article 22 and 23 say;

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

There was an excellent documentary on Nova about violence - "The Violence Paradox" presided over by Steven Pinker who claims that violence has decreased over the millennia. When the data was looked at more closely they found that there were pockets of violence within a larger area that was mostly peaceful. Where were these pockets of violence? In places where there was enormous economic inequality compared to surrounding areas and enormous poverty. Makes sense, doesn't it? Such areas as the south side of Chicago which is mostly comprised of poor African Americans living side by side with the rich areas of Lake Forest and Oak Brook. The same goes for Detroit in which the worst area to live in is Forest Park. In Forest Park 94.42% of the population is Black or African American. On the other hand Grosse Pointe Shores, a Detroit suburb is the wealthiest town in Michigan. The overall crime rate in Forest Park is 275% higher than the national average. So there you go.

The legacy of racism is still extant in the US and manifests itself in gun violence in poor neighborhoods comprised mostly of African Americans. So who is doing something about it? The main idea is could violence be treated in the same way as infectious diseases for which the most important thing is to detect the first case and cut it off there before it spreads. With violence one shooting leads to revenge shootings which lead to more revenge shootings etc so if there could be an intervention after the first shooting, then maybe the others could be prevented. So a new kind of health worker has been invented - a violence interrupter.

Safe Streets Baltimore is doing just that. These guys who know the streets identify the hot spots and intervene to try to resolve problems before they escalate. They deserve a lot of credit. They are putting their own lives at risk. They know that the precipitating factors are lack of economic opportunities, lack of education, lack of all the things they have in the wealthier communities. Cure Violence International is working on the same principles around the world. But the root problem is the same. People take to street crime because they don't have the things other people take for granted - a roof over their head, proper nutrition, education, health care including mental health care, a good job, a community that cares.

Back to my first point. Bernie Sanders and his philosophy of democratic socialism is nothing new, therefore, nothing radical. It has been made to seem that way by radical Republicans and reactionaries who hated FDR, hate the UN, hate anyone or any group that is trying to alleviate poverty and, therefore, violence in the world. But the challenge now is far worse than just the eradication of poverty and violence. If the nations of the world can't cooperate and work together to ameliorate global warming, then the whole earth and its peoples don't have a chance. This calls for putting nation state conflicts aside and massive government collaboration on a global scale. We can't afford to dither while the economic forces of the elite are all about making more billions for themselves. This goes hand in hand with eliminating poverty in the world and making the whole world a better and safer place.

Off the Top of My Head

What the World Needs Now

by John Lawrence, October 28, 2019

No, we don't need another aircraft carrier. We don't need another Aegis weapon system. We don't need a Paladin tank. What the world needs now is proper sanitation. An estimated 1.8 billion people (25% of the world's population) don't have access to adequate sanitation. They have no running water. They have no flush toilets. Because of this, approximately 140 million people develop dysentery each year, and about 600,000 die. Most of these deaths occur in developing countries among children under age five. They all die for lack of something we take for granted - a flush toilet and an adequate sanitation system. Access to safe sanitation reduces child diarrhea by 30 percent and significantly increases school attendance by the way. 

Because latrines in developing countries are such gross and smelly places, about 892 million people, or 12 percent of the global population, practice open defecation. Seventy-six percent (678 million) of the 892 million people practicing open defecation in the world live in just seven countries, India being the largest. What happens with the latrines is that the poop is hand scooped out and dumped in the rivers where it contaminates the water that children play in, and they get dysentery. All for the lack of something that Americans and Europeans take for granted - a flush toilet.

Clean water and adequate sanitation should be the basics provided to every human being worldwide. Instead the US is more concerned with the development of weapons systems. It took one very wealthy and intelligent American, namely Bill Gates, to decide to do something about this problem. He attacked it with all the considerable resources at his disposal and came up with a sanitary toilet that required no electricity or running water. Also a sanitation system was developed that required no electricity or running water. The problem was that these inventions were too expensive to deploy on a mass basis.

Gates has also done much to eradicate polio in the world. Again due to his considerable mental and financial resources, polio was almost eradicated in Nigeria until Boko Haram intervened and started killing vaccination workers. In India polio has been entirely eradicated. In 1988, when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was launched, polio was present in more than 125 countries and paralyzed about 1,000 children per day. Thanks to immunization efforts that have reached nearly 3 billion children, the incidence of polio has decreased by 99 percent since then. India, which was long considered the most difficult place to end the disease, hasn’t reported a polio case since 2011. Today, polio is found only in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria. These are the exact places that terrorism runs rampant. Maybe a functioning sanitation system would go a long way to eliminate terrorism as well.

But why isn't the United States with its considerable resources doing more to improve the lives of the world's population thus eliminating the breeding grounds for terrorism? There is USAID started by President John Kennedy. In FY 2016, USAID invested more than $441.5 million toward water and sanitation efforts in 47 countries and regions, including 13 high-priority countries. The Gates Foundation in and of itself spends almost that much in this area. Surely, a great country like the US could do a lot more. It spends 10,000 times as much on weapons systems development as it does on the development of basic life saving sanitation and clean water systems in the developing world. These are the US national priorities.

Bill Gates is trying to reinvent the toilet, not exactly a high tech undertaking. This is from the Gates website:

Bill Gates Launches Reinvented Toilet Expo Showcasing New Pathogen-Killing Sanitation Products That Don’t Require Sewers or Water Lines

Gates Foundation and Global Partners Announce Commitments to Advance Commercialization of Disruptive, Off-Grid Toilet Technologies

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

206-709-3400

media@gatesfoundation.org

follow @gatesfoundation

BEIJING, November 6, 2018 – The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and the China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), today joined global innovators, development banks, private-sector players, and governments at the Reinvented Toilet Expo in Beijing. Together, they committed to accelerate the commercialization and adoption of disruptive sanitation technologies world-wide over the next decade. Rapid expansion of new, off-grid sanitation products and systems could dramatically reduce the global human and economic toll of unsafe sanitation, including the deaths of half a million children under the age of 5 each year and the more than $200 billion that is lost due to health care costs and decreased income and productivity.

Note how involved China is. If the US wants to make America great again, perhaps they should take a page out of China's book and participate in making the world a better place instead of just a better place for US weapons sales. China is taking a leading role in making the world a better place with its Belt and Road initiative and now with its efforts to reinvent the toilet. All the US is trying to do is to slow down China in a pathetic attempt to compete with them.

Off the Top of My Head

Which is Better: Government So Small You Can Drown It in a Bathtub or Government so Large It Can Build a Silk Road Linking Most Countries in Europe and Asia?

by John Lawrence, October 27, 2019

The US has staked its claims on minimizing the role of government except for the military of course. China, on the other hand, has invested in infrastructure all over the world in addition to bringing 850 million of its own people out of poverty in 40 years. So Grover Norquist's dream of making government so small you can drown it in a bathtub, sadly, has about come true, but the result is that the once greatest country in the world has ceded that role to China. China now owns a 51% interest in the Greek port of Piraeus, one of the largest ports in Europe. They build railroads in Kenya, hydropower dams in Argentina and in March 2019, Italy became the first G7 nation to join China's Belt and Road Initiative.

Meanwhile, the US under President Trump has removed all its troops from Syria ("They're coming home, folks.), abandoned its friends and allies the Kurds by so doing, and then sent the troops back to Syria not to help the Kurds but to protect some oil fields. Yes, oil fields are so much more important that people, folks. The US under Trump has pretty much lost all credibility in the world community, and Grover Norquist has got his wish come true. The free market system has been enshrined and government has been dethroned ... but not in China.

Remember when America was great? We sent a man to the moon, but that was not because of the free market system. That was because of John F. Kennedy's government led effort. Remember when we helped win WW II. That was because of government. Remember how we got out of the Great Depression which was caused by the free market system. Again, government. Now China is proving again that government has a role in peacefully rebuilding the world, a world that has been largely destroyed by the US in the Middle East. As Kurds flee their homes, the US is right there once again not to protect them but to protect oil fields.

American foreign policy has been run by a bunch of dolts ever since George W Bush "liberated" Iraq so it could be run by the majority of the people (democracy is majority rule, right?) who just happened to be Shiites aligned with our enemy Iran. Now Trump has more or less turned Syria over to Putin and al-Assad who are aligned with Iran. American foreign policy has turned the whole Middle East over to our supposed enemies at great cost to American taxpayers and much misery to the 60 million refugees in the world. Our only friend there is Saudi Arabia which murders journalists like Kashoggi and murders women and children with American arms in Yemen. And then Trump brags about how much money we made selling arms to Saudi Arabia. According to ABC news, "During his first visit to a foreign nation as president, President Trump announced a massive deal: $110 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia. He called the agreement "tremendous" and bragged about the billions of dollars in investments and jobs that would be brought to the United States as a result." China is creating jobs not be selling arms but by building bridges.

If all you have is a hammer, the solution to every problem involves hammering. Similarly, the US sees every problem in the world as having a military solution. The response to China's gaining ground, winning friends and influencing people in the rest of the world is, not to compete with China in building infrastructure or in building 5G, but to try and hinder China so it doesn't gain ground quite so fast. So it has sanctioned COSCO, the largest shipping company in the world which owns the Greek port of Piraeus, because it is helping Iran to ship its oil which the US has sanctioned. We will tell you with whom you can and with whom you cannot trade with, thank you very much. The US can't compete in 5G with Huawei so it arrests its executive. So pitiful that a once great nation elects a dolt as President, ruins the Middle East with its foreign policy and can't compete with China except to say ... whoa there, not so fast.

China is investing in infrastructure, building wealth and providing jobs all over the world. A new report from Credit Suisse (CS) shows that wealth in China is ticking up, and the country now accounts for 100 million of the richest 10% of people in the world. There are 99 million Americans in the same category. Who ever thought that communism could provide more wealth than capitalism? Hey Grover Norquist, you better refill that bathtub.

'Go Home America. After You Made Our Sons Die': Outraged Syrian Kurds Throw Dirt and Rotten Food at Fleeing US Troops

Published on Monday, October 21, 2019

by Common Dreams

"To the U.S. Army who are leaving northeast Syria, tell your children that the children of the Kurds were killed by the Turks and you did nothing to protect them."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

2 Comments

Residents angry over the U.S. withdrawal from Syria hurl potatoes at American military vehicles in the town of Qamishli, Syria on Monday, October 21, 2019. (Photo: ANHA/Twitter Screengrab)

Outraged residents of the heavily Kurdish city of Qamishli, Syria on Monday hurled potatoes, rotten fruit, and dirt at American soldiers departing the northeastern region of the country on orders from U.S. President Donald Trump, whose decision paved the way for a deadly Turkish invasion.

"Like rats, America is running away," one man shouted in Arabic as a convoy of armored vehicles made its way through the city.

Other angry residents shouted "America liar" and "No America" in English as they pelted the U.S. vehicles with food.

"The scene encapsulated the Kurds' feelings of betrayal and added a new indignity to an American withdrawal that has been rushed and saw several close brushes with Turkish-backed forces," the Associated Press reported. "The Kurds were stunned when President Donald Trump two weeks ago abruptly decided to pull U.S. troops out of border areas, abandoning their allied Kurdish-backed fighters ahead of Turkey's invasion."

Watch:

Stones and rotten fruit for the withdrawing US force. What a farce this has been. pic.twitter.com/PN82C6I18a

— Adam Harvey (@adharves) October 21, 2019

‘Go home America. After you made our sons die.’ There‘s such a sense of betrayal here in north east Syria. pic.twitter.com/bYVuy3Ycb7

— Adam Harvey (@adharves) October 21, 2019

 

The incident in Qamishli came hours after a group of protesters near the town of Tal Tamr blocked the road as U.S. tanks and trucks made their way from northeastern Syria to Iraq.

"To the U.S. Army who are leaving northeast Syria, tell your children that the children of the Kurds were killed by the Turks and you did nothing to protect them," read a sign raised by one resident.

"Thanks for U.S. people, but Trump betrayed us," read another sign.

Tonight in N. Syria, Kurds showing their reaction to US forces who are ordered to withdraw. Emotional signs pointing out how people left defenseless #SaveKurds pic.twitter.com/ED75LooPVY

— Mutlu Civiroglu (@mutludc) October 21, 2019

The New York Times reported Sunday evening that Trump is considering a new plan that would leave 200 American troops in Syria to "combat the Islamic State and block the advance of Syrian government and Russian forces into the region's coveted oil fields."

Earlier Sunday, Trump tweeted that the U.S. has "secured the oil" in Syria and is "bringing soldiers home." But, as Common Dreams reported Monday, Pentagon chief Mark Esper confirmed the 1,000 American troops withdrawing from Syria are shifting to Iraq, not returning to the United States.

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Syria

by John Lawrence, October9, 2019

In a nutshell, Kurds betrayed again. Over half of Syria's prewar population of 22 million are now refugees. ISIS detention camp no longer protected by Kurds so they're about to be set free so they can reconstitute themselves, and it can start all over. Turkey on the march. If Trump wants to bring troops home, how about the 35,000 troops stationed in Germany. If Trump wants Europeans to pay more for their protection, BRING THEM HOME. Or how about the 55,000 troops stationed in Japan. Let Japan pay for their own protection and BRING THEM HOME. He never should have brought the troops home from Syria, however.

There are about 11,000 ISIS detainees in over 30 detention facilities across northern Syria. A separate camp for internally displaced persons known as al-Hol, located in northeastern Syria, holds nearly 70,000 people, including thousands of ISIS family members, according to a recent Defense Department Inspector General’s report. Trump has told Turkey it is now responsible for the ISIS detainees. Turks are saying, gee thanks.The Syrian situation is a ghastly mess, but Trump has made it worse by withdrawing US troops. After all the Kurds did the fighting with US help and assistance to break the back of the ISIS caliphate. Now, what you going to do with them all now that they're in detention camps? This situation cried out for a diplomatic solution, but diplomacy is America's short suit. The only diplomacy Trump knows how to do is to threaten people with sanctions, the latest, of course, is to destroy Turkey's economy if they don't do what he wants and what he wants isn't very clear, let alone carefully thought out.

A political solution would involve recognizing that Turkey has 3.6 million Syrian refugees which it wants to resettle back in Syria. It would recognize Bashar al-Assad as Syria's President, and respect the territorial integrity of Syria. It would give the Kurds an autonomous region inside Syria. It would recognize Russia's and Iran's roles inside Syria because they are Syria's traditional allies. It would bring all these disparate parties to the bargaining table perhaps at the UN. A political solution would provide for the unlimited detention of the 11,000 ISIS fighters preferable at a site outside Syria, perhaps at Guantanamo along with the other detainees there where they are unlikely to reconstitute themselves and start over.

But diplomacy and world leadership is the US short suit especially now with an imbecile as President surrounded by a bunch of toadies and henchmen. So the result will probably be: sanctions against Turkey, the destruction of the Kurds by Turkey, the freeing of the ISIS detainees and the dumping of the Syrian refugees back inside Syria without adequate support to restore their lives. Let's hope that for once cooler heads prevail.