For fiscal year 2021, the total United States military budget has come in at a staggaring $934 billion dollars, which includes a base budget of $636 billion dollars plus ancillary Department Of Defense spending and Veterans Affairs related expenses. This easily dwarfs the military budgets of the next nineteen biggest spending nations combined and makes any claims of the existence of an underfunded military in the United States seem preposterous, but beyond the excessive military spending, the most damning aspect of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus is its confiscation of moral sentiment from the American public.
The de rigueurexcuses of national security, preserving democracy the world over and winning the war on terrorism fall flat given the results of recent military adventures in the Middle East and Africa. A state of continued instability exists in Iraq and Afghanistan, an epidemic of cholera and famine, nay, gencocide, is consuming Yemen and open slave markets have operated in Libya, all under the guise of the ever popular U.S. mantra of making the world safe for democracy. Countless under-reported military campaigns across Africa are sowing seeds of resentment, which will inevitably lead to terror attacks at home and death and destruction abroad.
A seemingly minor incident in the grand scheme of U.S. military involvement in Africa was the 2013 French led and U.S. supported intervention in Mali. Undertaken ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, the continued military actions should give every American pause given the ongoing chaos in Mali and its surrounding countries. The lack of curiosity and empathy by the American public for the victims of U.S. foreign policy actions speaks volumes to the power and influence of the foreign policy bureaucracy.
If it even were to cross the mind of the casual news observer, the standard assumption regarding Mali would be that the state is addressing the plight of an affected people and the average citizen need not think any more of it. This is a common sentiment that has its roots in the New Deal era. Many of the criticisms levied against the New Deal can be applied in relation to current U.S. foreign policy: that it has needlessly burdened the economy under its crushing weight of debt, it has enabled a massively wasteful bureaucracy, it has encouraged a crony capitalist system, it has vastly reduced individual freedom and it has concentrated an absurd amount of authority in Washington, D.C.
Although these are all valid criticisms of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, perhaps its most spurious achievement is its ability to have morally corrupted the American public. This concept was identified by Albert Jay Nock, writing in a 1937 article for the American Mercury, wherein he stated that everyday Americans have been, “suffocated of that decent humanitarian spirit, and have allowed themselves to be dried-up of the ordinarily decent humane impulses toward one’s fellow-men.” This is an horrendous achievement indeed.
With over 1,000 military bases in over eighty countries, the U.S. military footprint can be found imposing its will on sovereign people the world over. Grandstanding U.S. politicians confidently wash their collective hands of the realities on the ground so long as the lofty ideals of freedom and democracy are invoked triumphantly before any military action begins. As recounted in a 2018 article by Jim Bovard, historian Irving Babbitt explained (after WWI), “the American judges himself by the way he feels, whereas the foreigner judges him by what he does.” This sentiment continues to hold true today.
A Brief History of Mali
In 1960, France formally agreed to the independence of the Federation of Mali. Not surprisingly, they engineered a system in which Mali would remain economically dependent on them. The inhabitants of the region are commonly referred to as the Tuareg people in French literature, but they call themselves Azawad and they are an extension of the Berber people, whose living area historically extended across numerous modern countries, including northern Mali, southern Algeria, Mauritania and Niger. As is the case with many native populations in the Middle East and Africa, when modern borders were drawn, they were screwed out of valuable resources and were left with very little territory of their own, setting them up for perpetual struggles.
There have long been tensions between the population residing in the southern part of Mali and the Azawad people of the North, with cultural, economic and social discrimination toward the Azawad, who have a real case for grievances. As such, the Azawad have rebelled numerous times against the South over the course of time since Mali achieved independence. In typical neo-colonialist fashion, the French have pitted one group against another, using one group as a vehicle to control the economic resources of the region.
The Current Situation
Mali is a desperately poor country, especially for the Tuareg population in the North and for many, the only way for many to make a living was to join up as a mercenary in the Libyan Army. In 2011, with the fall of Gadaffi in Libya (there was no U.S. involvement there, right?), many Tuareg mercenaries came back to their homeland and brought their weapons with them. Given the influx of weapons, the Azawad again saw an opportunity to rebel against the South and they were bolstered by a recent military coup that had taken place in the capital city of Bamako. Not surprisingly, the U.S. played a role in this as well.
It’s important to note that the Tuareg goals were economic and secular, but one fatal flaw in the Azawad plan was that they teamed up with a couple of Islamist groups, whose goals were radically different. These radical elements eventually took over the movement and began marching South toward Timbuktu and Gao, committing atrocities along the way. The Mali central government was helpless to intervene due to the military coup, which conveniently gave the pretext for international intervention.
Unbeknownst to most, according to African Foreign Policy expert Rob Prince, in two 2013 interviews (here and here) with Scott Horton, the U.S. had spent billions of dollars training the Mali military, but it also had trained the people involved in the coup, who then overthrew the Mali government! The failure of all this money spent training a military that couldn’t function became another pretext for military involvement. Eventually, the coup ended and a civilian leader, Dioncounda Traoré,was installed as President. Interestingly, he happened to have strong ties to Paris and NATO and he immediately wrote a letter to the UN Security Council imploring them to help quell the rebellion. Although attempts were made to convince the Algerians to intervene, ultimately the French and the U.S. entered the fray.
It’s also worth noting that there are two important French facilities in the region: first, there is a large mining company in nearby Niger, owned by the French company Avena and secondly, there is a French military base in Mopti, in central Mali. The French were nervous about their military installation and also concerned that the chaos in Mali might spill over into Niger, providing another pretext for intervention.
The standard narrative presented to the American public regarding the situation in Mali is the well worn excuse of necessary humanitarian intervention, which is a deliberate attempt at deceiving the public into thinking that military action is absolutely necessary. The reality is that it is often military meddling and neo-colonialist attempts at securing resources that have caused the problem in the first place. Add to that, it is occuring in a place that is very far away, the boots on the ground aren’t from the U.S. and the military casualty rate is low, so who cares? The media will put up a series of out of context videos showing scary looking rebels firing their guns into the air, which will suffice for a few news cycles. Soon enough several years will pass, everyone will forget what happened and the process will repeat itself in a different part of the world.
The big picture of U.S. foreign policy includes a long term plan for the militarization of Africa in order to secure oil, uranium and other minerals. But, with the U.S. strategic focus shifting to Asia, the key is to achieve this militarization in such a manner where the U.S. military footprint is not as great as it has been in the Middle East. This will necessarily require other countries to provide the boots on the ground, which is exactly what happened with the intervention in Mali. If this story is news to you and you didn’t know anything about the conflict in Mali, you’re not alone. The military action in Mali is one piece in an enourmously complex puzzle of the never ending war on terrorism. Fortunately, there is a new book out, titled Enough Already by Scott Horton, that encompasses the whole of the U.S. terror wars and is presented in concise and easily digestible chapters, allowing the reader to understand how these seemingly independent interventions are linked together within the broader context of the War on Terrorism.
Understanding the broader context will take some effort and it would be far easier to simply brush it aside and farm out one’s morality to the state, but at what cost? Writing in the aforementioned American Mercuryarticle, Nock summed it up best, “We think a great deal about the State’s ever-increasing confiscations of money and power; why not think a little about its confiscations of sentiment? They seem to me the most damaging and degrading of all its confiscations, as well as the hardest to repair.” Indeed, we would be wise to reject the folly of militarized humanitarian idealism.
Nick Weber lives in Denver, Colorado and writes articles at www.denverdoggery.com covering history, politics, and beer. Follow him on Twitter @denverdoggery or email email@example.com.
The War State: The Cold War Origins Of The Military-Industrial Complex And The Power Elite, 1945-1963, by Michael Swanson
Not too long ago, a deluge of hysteria surrounded President Trump amid his threat to declare a national emergency in order to secure funding for a border wall. Alas, those simpler times of alleged fascism have come and gone and a new hyper hysteria has reared its head via the global outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. All bets are off now with executive orders and emergency declarations being handed out almost daily, the most egregious of these being the invoking of the Defense Production Act to force a private company into manufacturing ventilators or the deployment of Federal troops to quell riots in Portland. This is far closer to fascism than any other previous actions, cloaked in the usual propaganda of being out of absolute necessity for the preservation of the “good of the people.” If nothing else, perhaps these executive actions might have many questioning the powers vested in the Executive Office, but the use of emergency declarations based on dubious claims of necessity and fear is nothing new.
It has been de rigueur for presidentsto establish new executive powers under the guise of national security for well over a century. Many point the finger at an out of control executive branch, surely this is the most visible and relatable, Orange Man Bad and all, but more correctly, it should be pointed at the continuous government, an unaccountable beast lying just under the surface. Although it operates behind the scenes, it typically manifests itself most visually through the ugly business of war. This continuous government of war, or more simply put, the War State, is enabled to exist through an unelected bureaucracy which stays firmly in place from administration to administration and is the apotheosis of government colluding with businesses and cartelizing markets.
Although the rise of the War State enabled a massive expansion of the executive branch, in one of those strange quirks of history, it would also be its downfall. Inevitably, the War State consumed and all but eliminated any true powers of the President. Enter the vapid figurehead as Leader, who offers nothing more than slogans and empty promises that have no bearing on the actual day to day operations of the continuous government. Despite this, many still manage to hang on to every vacuous phrase and will argue vehemently for their guy to take back the reins and straighten things out for the better.
In The War State, author Michael Swanson addresses an ever expanding question, a wormhole that opens up many avenues for investigation and exploration. That question, simple as it may be, is this: given that, “the federal government gave birth to large military budgets and mass income taxes at the same time and both live on together today as twin siblings of the war state, does this big-money spending lead to corruption?” (p.15)
To find out, Swanson takes the reader on a whirlwind journey, one where expert opinion molders attempted to convince big business and the American public to align with government and to foster a confident belief in its ability to execute any plan, if only given the necessary funding (voluntary or otherwise), time and requisite secrecy. With a belly full of propaganda, the masses were willing to believe in the War State’s necessity and indeed, became willing participants in the process of embedding the very bureaucracy that would forever exclude them from any preconceived notion of participation in the democratic process that they held so dearly. Bloated budgets became the norm and black operations became business as usual and all the while well connected businessmen lined their pockets without risk.
The War State thrives in times of fear and paranoia and to speak out against it is tantamount to treason, for this must mean that you are anti-American and that you want Americans to lose their manufacturing jobs or even worse, lose their life fighting for your freedoms! The War State is a deep-seated entity well over one hundred years in the making and at the most basic level, it is a crony capitalist venture, fascist at its core, with the average citizen being merely a pawn on the global chessboard. The War State is deeply embedded in the American psyche and there is no easy way out. The multifarious ill effects of its existence will be ever reverberating for centuries to come. But fear not! There is a silver lining: the War State enabled a situation that gave rise, as it were, to the miniskirt. Hooray?
The Pretense of Knowledge and Belief In Necessity
The state, despite its claim of being for the people, exists solely to feed itself and to obtain more power. It works the same under any form of government, be it communism or representative democracy. Both will feed the population with lies to prop up the belief in its necessity. Indeed, the common view held by the U.S. population is that the War State was an entity that grew out of necessity to handle a threat, one that could only be handled by an omnipotent military-security apparatus to plan, direct, and navigate an increasingly complex world of international geopolitical tensions.
Swanson casts aside this narrative in lieu of an interpretation focusing on the alliance with, and cartelization of, big business, manufacturing, government and perhaps most importantly, the opinion-molding military experts, who have ushered in an era of American exceptionalism, where destabilization and regime change has become the norm, inherently making the world less safe for the democracy that they proclaim to be tantamount to all other objectives. These so-called experts were able to convince not only an entire generation of independent minded civilians of the necessity of the War State’s existence, but they were able to convince a majority of supposedly infallible top government officials of its necessity as well. This alliance of business and government was a natural progression of the cartelization that became common throughout the Progressive Era, most explicitly evidenced by the railroad, petroleum, iron and steel, and sugar industries. And lest we forget, the granddaddy of all monopolies, the government education system, as emphasized by historian Thaddeus Russell on this recent podcast.
As with all things history, where does one start? Although the book’s subtitle indicates the Cold War origins of the Military-Industrial Complex, I contend that there are origins to be explored going back to the turn of the century in order to analyze some of the societal conditions that paved the way for a deference to authority that the War State required. Beginning in the Progressive Era and extending into the interwar period, a foundation was laid by a puritanical group of people who professed to have the ability to organize society in a manner far better than if people were left to their own devices; a self-proclaimed pretense of knowledge.
According to the standard narrative, the Progressive Era is broadly defined thusly: it was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States that spanned the 1890s to the 1920s. The main objectives of the Progressive movement were addressing problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption. Seems harmless enough, right? But more specifically, this was a movement of the intelligent class, who were educated at elite universities and who took it upon themselves to be the moral guardians guiding the unassimilated immigrants as to how they should think and act, and encouraging them to cast aside their individualistic predilections and assimilate into the greater culture. It is true enough that the Progressive Movement was a response to the massive flood of immigrants to the U.S. during the 1880s to the 1920’s, wherein the population roughly doubled with Irish, Jewish, Italian, Slavic and German immigrants (among others) arriving on the shores. Naturally, they all brought with them their extended families and their individual cultures.
The Progressives sought to change this via a process of assimilation and this is a foundational moment for the War State (more on this in a bit). A fusillade of approaches was used to enforce and achieve the Progressive worldview; the proper view. This can be evidenced most noticeably through the myriad settlement houses, as defined by historian Thaddeus Russell on this podcast, that were created to teach the immigrants how to speak English, how to work in a factory (for the men), how to be a housewife (for the women), how to dress properly and generally taught them the good and proper customs that were required to be a part of society, by their Progressive standards, of course. Beyond these literal assimilation factories, other means to achieve their goals included the war on opiates (a precursor of the modern drug war), the elimination of religious schools in lieu of secular English speaking government schools and the lobbying for, and enactment of, alcohol prohibition laws enforced by government guns.
What does this all have to do with the War State?
For any ruling entity, it is of necessity to prevent the citizenry from being individualistic. It is of necessity to modify the habits of the immigrants from the old world such that they abandon their cultural roots and fall in line with the rest of good society. A ruling entity needs a common identity to enforce an us-versus-them mentality. It needs to eliminate the mind that would rather think of sex or jazz. It needs to glorify going to work every day and to not be drunk all the time. It is of necessity to have a good and productive, yet docile citizenry, for a distracted and wandering mind does not bode well in a factory, and a factory, naturally, needs dedicated workers to build weapons of war. That is the importance of the Progressive Era. That is the cultural foundation of the War State.
On top of all the moral postulating and cultural genociding of the Progressive Era, there was a massive layer of government propaganda urging the masses to support a war that they largely opposed. Indeed, a song from 1915 titled, “I Didn’t Raise My Boy to be a Soldier,” was wildly popular amongisolationists, socialists, pacifists, many Protestant ministers, German Americans and Irish Americans. The song begins as follows:
Ten million soldiers to the war have gone, Who may never return again.
Ten million mothers’ hearts must break, For the ones who died in vain.
Head bowed down in sorrowin’ her lonely years, I heard a mother murmur thro’ her tears:
I didn’t raise my boy to be a soldier…
This type of sentiment, of course, did not sit well with the ruling class. Interventionists and militarists like former President Theodore Roosevelt beat the drums for war preparedness and although President Woodrow Wilson ran on a platform of, “He Kept us Out of War,” once he was re-elected he didn’t hesitate to send the boys off to slaughter. And what of the song? In responding to the song’s popularity, Roosevelt indicated that he was not a fan and he suggested that the place for women who opposed war was, “in China—or by preference in a harem—and not in the United States.” If you don’t fall in line with our worldview, then you must be excommunicated and forced to live a horrible life against your will. Nice guy.
Although the concept of government propaganda was not new, with the advent of the moving picture, radio shows and the influence of increasingly consolidating news services, the conditions were ripe for a pro-government media barrage, delivered in unison and with an air of authority in order to sway the masses to support government programs and ultimately, war. This trio of media, coupled with the government propaganda machine, made up another sinister aspect of the Progressive Era: the monopoly of information. Indeed, a willing extension of the government propaganda machine in the World War I era were some, but certainly not all, Hollywood stars who were eager to not only produce moving pictures in support of the war effort, but charismatically stood in front of their fellow citizens and promoted the buying of war bonds, as did Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford.
To gather some additional context on this monopoly of information and how it was deployed upon the masses in the United States, one must first take a slight detour to the other side of the pond. In Britain, throughout World War I, a massive propaganda campaign was employed to bolster public support for a largely unpopular war. Back then, the British propaganda machine constructed outlandish stories that were so brazenly false, that many grew weary of the propaganda, especially in the interwar period. As recounted in this Guardian article, “Britons discovered that there was no substance to most of the more lurid atrocity stories—about crucified soldiers, raped nuns, dismembered babies and notoriously, about the German factory [that rendered] corpses into fat.” The parallels to modern day claims of WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Destruction) or Iraqi soldiers tossing incubator babies to the ground are striking. Patently false in retrospect, they were effective in the short term to achieve their propagandistic goals.
In the run up to World War II, the U.S. government, in realizing the follies of the outlandish British propaganda machine during World War I, had to be a little more tactful so as to alleviate any doubtful public scrutiny. Trust was established through the creation of numerous new agencies and programs throughout the Great Depression. These programs included infrastructure projects, but also cultural projects including art, music, and writing. These programs served to solidify a faith in government taking care of the people (with an underlying intent of assimilation to promote a common culture) and by far, one of the most effective projects was President Roosevelt’s intimate radio broadcast fireside chats. Of course, this was not unique to the U.S., for a similar thing was occurring in Germany, as conveyed in the aforementioned Guardian article, “Hitler communicated with hypnotic directness through the new media of radio and cinema. Hitler could never have won widespread support if he had not been able to exploit the multiple miseries of the Depression. After 1929, Germans were receptive to his assertion that their sufferings were the evil fruits of the rotten Weimar system.” Sound familiar? Economic depression? Evil people out to get you? Government will save you.
While the U.S. population was distracted and riding high throughout the Roaring Twenties, the monopoly of information services were hard at work burying and downplaying the atrocities occurring in the Soviet Union. As conveyed in this Reason article, in reference to two terrible occurrences of this era, “One is Stalin’s deliberate infliction of a famine on the peasants of the Ukraine that killed between four million and seven million of them. The other is how Western journalists, particularly those of The New York Times, deliberately covered up the mass murder.” Indeed, as conveyed in this article regarding the Times’ covering up of atrocities, “Stalin suborned western journalists such as Walter Duranty, who famously wrote of the Ukraine famine in The New York Times: ‘There is no actual starvation, but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.’” Well, the Times reported it, I guess we’re in the clear!
And if that wasn’t bad enough, there’s more. Not content with merely burying stories of famine, the Times downplayed the existence of the horrific political show trials in the Soviet Union and conveyed them as a fair process back in the U.S. These show trials forced many false confessions under threat of imprisonment or death, based on the most flimsy or falsified evidence or even coerced testimony by relatives or friends. These show trials were used by Stalin to purge any dissenters and allowed him to gain absolute control of the government. Seems like a good thing to support?
Perhaps the interwar era is summed up best by this passage in the previously referenced Guardian article regarding propaganda measures, “Where it did not convince, it confused. It muddied the wells of knowledge and polluted the sources of understanding. It sanctioned the suspension of belief and disbelief. Propaganda helped to make the 1930s an age of obfuscation, of darkness at noon.” Given this situation, who will save you? Who could sort all of this out? With the myriad monopoly of information entities and progressive elites eschewing morality and alleged knowledge, what chance could one have? Consider too, that many newly landed immigrants from Germany, Ireland and countless other locations, were tacitly forced into broadly supporting the wars and other pro-government measures, lest they give the existing U.S. population any additional fodder with which to persecute them based solely on their country of origin (for more on that, see this article on the plight of the Volga Germans). The stage was set for the War State to inherit from its inception the societal framework of deference to political authority.
Funding Big Business – the Buildup
Although the book’s subtitle indicates a timeframe of 1945-1963 for the Cold War origins of the War State, the author takes us on a brief analysis of the relationship between the state and taxes going back to the World War I era. It is critical to the War State’s existence for it to have a continuous flow of funds. This was lacking in the era prior to World War II, where only the wealthiest individuals and corporations paid any income tax. Indeed in 1939, 93% of workers were not compelled to pay federal income tax. World War I had largely been financed through the sale of war bonds to the public, but the sheer magnitude of the cost of World War II proved this method of financing to be insufficient. Government sought to rectify this situation and “by 1943, the government started to deduct money out of people’s paychecks…[and by] the last year of the war, personal income tax receipts surpassed corporate income tax as the largest source of revenue…the size and power of the government grew as its revenue growth exploded by a factor of 8.8 from 1939 to 1945.” (p.14)
Taking the lead from President Woodrow Wilson during World War I, which saw an explosion in the number of new executive programs, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) ran with that concept and further expanded all aspects of government. This is to say nothing of his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, who was no stranger to government spending, despite the textbook claims that he was a, “strict supporter of laissez-faire economics [who] believed the government should never interfere in the economy,” as debunked by historian Tom Woods in the book 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask (p. 180).
In reading the standard history books, FDR is typically described as an enemy of business. While stumping on the campaign trail, FDR often attacked businessmen who were popular scapegoats in the post-depression era. This business bashing continued into the first few years of his presidency, but incentives matter, so how does one convince businesses to co-mingle with government after berating them year after year? The answer for FDR was to create a cartel and guarantee profits for select businesses. Swanson recounts this process as such:
“…before the war started there weren’t a bunch of large plants owned by big companies just sitting around and waiting for orders. Big war production was a new thing and the federal government itself often paid for and built the factories used in the defense industry and then gave them to the companies for free once the war ended. Of the twenty-six billion dollars spent during the war to build plants, seventeen billion was financed by the government. Taxpayer money financed the growth of the private defense industry.” (p. 18)
You’re welcome? Simply put, the concept was to build factories through coercive taxation, hand them over to businessmen and eliminate competitive bidding for government contracts, effectively removing the moral hazard of risk taking that a normal business would typically incur. Indeed, Swanson states that, “all of a contractor’s working capital is provided for by the federal government and payments are often made well in advance…this makes for a form of corporate socialism in which all risks are placed on the shoulders of taxpayers while profits are given to privately owned and well-connected corporations.” (p.20)
To be sure, from a broad conceptual level, there was nothing new about the government awarding money to defense contractors, but the difference was that prior to World War II, the government accepted competitive bids from numerous companies and typically awarded the contract to the lowest bidder. After the creation of the War Production Board, “within a few months 74 percent of the contracts were simply awarded after negotiation and not through competitive bidding.” (p.18)
Who would want to give up that kind of a business relationship? The War Production Board was all encompassing and fascist at its core as, “the board had the power not only to decide on the allocation of war contracts but also to prohibit production that it deemed unessential to the war effort…It even regulated the amount of fabric that could be used to make clothes, one effect of this being that women’s skirts had to be made shorter.” (p.17) Perhaps it was all worth it, eh?
Of course, there have always been entangled alliances between government and business and one can look to the U.S. in the 1830s for an example, where obtaining corporate status involved getting a specific grant from the state legislature. This would in turn confer upon an entity an artificial person status that would grant limited liability and other legal benefits, as described in this article by historian Anthony Comenga, in discussing the locofocos and the Free Soilers movements. This process unquestionably opened the door for corruption between business and government. The War State would build on this precedent and day by day, it’s power and influence would continue to grow.
Feeding the People and Sending Them Off to Slaughter
Once big business found itself sucked into government dependence, the everyday people just trying to put food on the table would follow suit with little complaint. If there is no job other than a government job, what choice does one have? Speaking of government dependence, the parallels to our current situation of dealing with the economic fallout of the government imposed shutdowns are staggering. Stories abound with respect to the masses of people calling for the government to take over businesses if they choose to accept bailout funds and the calls for the government to “put the people to work,” are never far away given the 40 million people (changing daily) filing for unemployment on account of the shutdowns.
The concept of putting the people to work has its roots in the Depression Era and two of the most commonly referenced programs are the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Public Works Administration (PWA), which were established in the 1930s under FDR. In classic government fashion, the similarity of the acronyms is confusing and the two are often interchanged in normal conversation. Although there are some definite overlaps, they are separate and distinct entities. The WPA was set up to provide jobs and income to the unemployed and unskilled citizens during the Great Depression, a seemingly benevolent government program of more or less local, community projects set up for the betterment of society.
These projects included broad categories of infrastructure projects, recreational projects, government buildings and health and safety uses for the greater community (roads, bridges, municipal buildings, schools, parks, water supply and sewage treatment facilities, etc.). Another aspect of the WPA was more culturally focused (albeit a culture that government deemed appropriate) and was implemented through five different sub-categories including the Federal Art Project, Music Project, Theatre Project, Writers’ Project, and Historical Records Survey. These five categories fell under the ominous title of Federal Project Number One, in which the government provided direct funding support instead of providing grants to private institutions.
A majority of the population is familiar with the work of the WPA with respect to the construction of public works projects, but it is lesser known that some of the work included the construction of military related projects. This is where the overlap begins with the WPA and the PWA. It’s important to emphasize again that the WPA was a direct government payment process; the worker was paid directly by the government. The PWA, on the other hand, awarded contracts to private companies, who in turn hired workers and completed the work (with the oversight of the government, of course). Although military bases were the primary expenditure, perhaps more visually impactful were monumental architecture projects in major cities, all seemingly orchestrated and guided by a charismatic president, boldly leading the way to prosperity. This imagery has been firmly ingrained into the psyche of the American populace.
Coming off the heels of U.S. involvement in World War I, the U.S. populace was largely anti-war and if, according to government rhetoric, the country was ostensibly opposed to fascism and willing to send young men off to die to fight against it, how could one institute a fascist takeover of industry and implement a massive military build-up in one’s own country to take on fascist dictators half a world away in World War II? The answer was to let these projects be seen as a private process, where one’s paycheck comes from a private company who is building for the good of the country! Nothing untoward happening here, citizen! Hitler understood this and he infamously stated that, “the great strength of a totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.”
It’s no stretch to argue that civil liberties are lost during wartime and it’s a rather odd statement to say that one must limit civil liberties to protect civil liberties, yet that is exactly what happens during a total war scenario. As conveyed by Dan Carlin in a recent episode of Hardcore History (20:00 min mark), scientist Alex Comfort echoed this sentiment, during a debate with George Orwell when he stated that, “if Hitler wins, then political fascism is victorious; if any country wants to defeat fascism, they must assimilate as much of it’s philosophy as one can.” As such, Hitler was set to win either way. Try out that line of argument at your next dinner party, that ought to ruffle some feathers. Indeed, Hilter and Mussolini marveled at FDR’s fascist programs and the book Three New Deals provides wonderful context for this process.
Although it is tempting to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole and expound on a nefarious globalist entity that was planning, via top secret meetings, to expand military installations through crony capitalists ventures and get the people to pay for it, it wasn’t all that hidden. In fact, many publications were issued in support of the endeavors. Documents such as America Builds and Millions for Defense laid it out as plain as day. These plans included government funding that would inherently work their way into every nook and cranny of the economy. Also, this necessarily expanded a regulatory state which would verify proper usage of the funding, but more importantly it gave a pretext for citizens to turn on each other for alleged violations of government imposed mandates. Citizens turning against each other for alleged state violations was a regular occurrence in Stalinist Russia or Mao’s China, but similar occurrences have happened throughout U.S. history.
One specific example occurred during the 1930s amid the programs and regulations established under the National Recovery Act (NRA). Established under FDR, the alleged goal was to “eliminate cutthroat competition” by aligning business and government to set price controls and establish fair labor practices. Chief among these fair practices were minimum wages, maximum hours, and establishing minimum prices for which goods could be sold. Although participation in the NRA was, in theory, voluntary, many business owners felt the pressure to “do their part” and institute the central control policies with respect to their business operations. Those who chose to participate were encouraged to display the NRA Blue Eagle emblem on their storefronts. An alleged symbol of pride, it was often used against businesses who chose to skirt the established regulations, as citizens were encouraged to report violations. History rhymes, sometimes, as we are well into the COVID era of turning in mask ordinance violators or businesses who stay open beyond government dictated hours of operation. Beyond turning in businesses who violated NRA regulations, many good society folks flat out avoided or boycotted businesses who chose to not participate in the NRA programs. This essentially made participation in the programs mandatory in order for businesses to have a chance at survival in the inter-war era.
Alas, all good things come to an end, right? In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NRA laws were unconstitutional. Huzzah! The NRA quickly ceased operations, but many of its labor provisions quietly reappeared via the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) passed later that year, a long term result being the growth and power of unions and government for the foreseeable future.
Most speak of the World War II era as a time when the greatest generation went off to fight in a great battle between good and evil. “Our boys” went overseas to fight against a leviathan entity that was attempting to dominate and control the world in it’s own image. Many went off to war confident that they were fighting to eliminate dictators and ensure the sovereignty of free people the world over. Little did they know, they were laying the groundwork for conflicts abroad that are still being dealt with today. It sounds simple: topple a dictator, draw new boundaries, install a new “democratic” leader and the people will greet us with flowers! The reality is that what fills the void is chaos owing to the fact that the installed leader is typically an adversary to the natural order and is beholden to the almighty U.S. government. The population becomes dissatisfied and revolts, which conveniently provides the pretext for continued intervention.
Back home, however, what had spawned was the framework of a continuous government apparatus, a hidden dictator completely devoid of any influence by a largely good-intentioned and anti-interventionist American populace. Indeed, in the book Hirohito’s War, as relayed by Dan Carlin on Hardcore History Episode 63 (1:04:00), “a poll conducted one month after war had broken out…as quoted by Francis Pike, ‘95% of the U.S. population wanted to stay out of war.’”
Under the veil of security, the continuous government embedded itself into every aspect of American life such that its elimination, or even talk of its elimination, would be met with such fierce debate and faux outrage that none dared question its existence. Once established, the bureaucracy and all knowing central planning of the state would take it from there.
Author Michael Swanson described it thusly:
“World War II gave birth to today’s military-industrial complex. Yes, the United States had mobilized to fight in several major wars in its prior history, such as the Civil War and World War I, but after all of them, the country reduced its military industry to nothing. With President Truman’s approval of NSC-68, a permanent war industry became established in the country. With each passing year, its influence grew. By the end of Eisenhower’s presidency, it became the most powerful special interest group in the nation, with powerful tentacles reaching into the economy, the defense bureaucracies, and dozens of congressmen. It transformed the federal government of the United States into a war state. President Kennedy would discover how entrenched and dangerous it had become.” (p194)
NSC-68, Propaganda, and Bureacracy
Written by and presented to President Harry Truman in 1950 by the Department of State and Department of Defense, NSC-68 was a top secret National Security Council (NSC) policy paper that described the threats and challenges facing the United States in cataclysmic terms that involved the destruction of not only the republic, but the whole of humanity as well, if certain government and military interventions were not implemented. For many Americans, the existence of the Constitution guarantees a means to reign in overreaching executive actions and maintains the checks and balances that keep wayward government entities from running wild with power. Once NSC-68 was put in place under a veil of secrecy, this unseen mechanism would determine courses of action outside any modicum of authorization or pretense of representation.
Far beyond mere planning, it enabled unelected experts to dictate to military leaders and the general population what was best for their security and well being. Edward Bernays foresaw this in his book Propaganda, where he argued that, “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” (p. 129) Indeed, there is no truer example of this than NSC-68, which was implemented outside any formal review or referendum by the people. In The War State, author Michael Swanson described the process thusly:
“Without any explanation to the American people, the United States made the move from a policy of containment to one of global empire during the Truman administration. This decision was codified in NSC-68, which claimed that no nation on the planet could be neutral in the bipolar, East-versus-West world. Therefore, NSC-68 saw part of the world in the hands of the Soviet Union and Communism and the rest of it under the leadership of the United States. This was a policy of empire, because it meant that any nation that tried to maintain an independent line from that of the United States but was not under the control of the Soviet Union became a target for CIA operations, ranging from propaganda activities and the bribery of officials to ‘covert’ wars.” (p. 392)
New Enemies, Real and Imagined
One might expect that after World War II peacetime would resume and military expenditures would be drastically cut given the defeat of the evil enemy, but alas, a new boogeyman was created to fill the void. The great adversary to come out of World War II targeted by NSC-68 was the Soviet Union, who was portrayed as a grave threat to the U.S. and for democracy writ-large.
Having suffered tremendous casualties during World War II and with an economy stretched beyond thin, claiming that the Soviet Union was the greatest threat to the U.S. would be a tenuous argument for the public to believe, but a veritable tsunami of propaganda was about to broadside the unsuspecting populace, who were well trained in deference to government omniscience. This deluge of propaganda promulgated a culture of fear, which became the norm for the foreseeable future. The message was clear: the only entity that could protect anyone from the unseen evildoers in a faraway land, was a massive military-security apparatus.
Swanson described it thusly:
“Thanks to exaggerations in news stories and pure propaganda, Americans lived in the 1950s in a state of terror over nuclear war when the Soviet Union didn’t even have the capability to launch a missile that was able to reach the United States until the 1960s. Nor did it have a viable bomber force. In the 1950s, Air Force General Curtis LeMay said he had the ability to order SAC [Strategic Air Command] bombers to attack the Soviet Union and destroy all of its war-making capabilities ‘without losing a man to their defenses.’ Americans were completely safe, but they lived in constant fear.” (p. 394)
The propaganda easily worked on the average citizen, but it also influenced government and military officials’ decisions to build military installations all across the U.S. under the guise of absolute necessity. A prime example of this is the now abandoned Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex, in Nekoma, North Dakota, which encompasses 470 acres and contains 46 underground missile silos in addition to a massive concrete pyramid. Construction on the project began in the 1960s and was not complete until 1975. The discs on the side of the pyramid were state-of-the-art radar technology that, in theory, could be used to detect multiple incoming missiles simultaneously without having to maneuver a more traditional large mesh dish. It was purported to be able to provide a six minute warning and the missiles could hit a target within thirty seconds. The construction of this gargantuan building and surrounding military complex exceeded six billion dollars, but the facility was only active and in operation for three days (for more on the Nekoma facility, see this article). Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Mind you, this was one facility in a veritable sea of military construction expenditures for the United States. Of course, massive military expenditures were not unique to the U.S. in this era, for enormous nation states naturally tend to expand and will come up with any excuse to necessitate construction of ever larger military bases in the name of security. To wit, the Soviet Union was no stranger to this desire as can be evidenced by this long abandoned air base for the 126th Fighter Aviation Regiment, located on the edge of the Gobi Desert in Mongolia, a full 2,700 miles from Moscow. Both the Nekoma facility and the Gobi Desert air base were recently covered on separate episodes of the Science Channel show “Mysteries of the Abandoned” and the imagery is striking, but any criticism of the War State is eerily left out of the discussion, leaving the only mystery being how the war time propaganda is still in full force, some sixty years after their construction and subsequent abandonment.
Perhaps one of the best takeaways of the book is the realization that such a small percentage of opinion molders were able to convince the bureaucracy and the average citizen that there was an imminent Soviet threat that could only be addressed by a massive military apparatus. Swanson provides some context regarding the standard assumptions with respect to Soviet military capabilities of the era:
“The Soviet Union, however, was not as powerful as the American politicians, reporters, and national security bureaucrats linked to the military-industrial complex claimed it was. NSC-68, written and approved as the guiding national security document for the United States in 1950, argued that if the country did not vastly increase its defense spending, then in just a few years Russia would be on track to produce enough conventional and nuclear weapons that they would be able to completely run over Western Europe and defeat the United States in an atomic attack. During the Eisenhower administration, politicians, such Senator Henry Jackson of Washington, linked to Boeing and other defense contractors, claimed that the Soviet Union had produced so many bombers that a ‘bomber gap’ existed, while the Gaither Report [a committee tasked by President Eisenhower] claimed that by 1960 Khrushchev would have the ability to launch a first-strike missile launch that would cripple the ability of the United States to retaliate. Such claims helped complete the transformation of the United States into a permanent war state by the end of the 1950s, but none of them were even close to reality.” (p. 264)
Continuing on, Swanson clarifies for the reader that:
“Yes, in 1955, the Soviet Union had plenty of nuclear bombs and was more than capable of exploding them in tests, but it had no way to deliver any of them as a weapon against an American city. The American B-52 bomber could fly 7,343 miles when refueled, which was far enough to reach the Soviet Union, but the Russia M-4, called the Bison bomber by NATO, couldn’t reach the United States, because its designers couldn’t figure out an easy way to refuel it in the air. The M-4 could only fly five thousand miles, which was too short for it to reach either coast of the United States from the closest point of the Soviet Union.” (p. 265)
As with all things in communism, the illusion was better than the reality, but the War State couldn’t fool the people by itself, it needed help. With only three major TV networks and a handful of newspapers of record providing the news coverage, the rigged game continued with the full participation of the press. An astonishing example of this was that although the Soviets only had four M-4 bombers, “when the Russians put on a major air show, they took the four bombers and had them fly around in wide circles to give the impression that there were dozens of them. Khrushchev was pleased when American newspapers reported on a supposed ‘bomber gap’ thanks to the Bison bomber. They saw what they wanted to see.” (p. 265)
So much for all that fourth estate, junior high textbook definition of the media keeping a watchful eye on the government. Indeed, the in-depth recounting of the true capabilities of the Soviet military is one of the great takeaways from the book. This was all hidden from the American public and the myth of the necessity of a massive military buildup in order to deal with an embellished threat took hold and continues today. Swanson dismantles this mythology:
“In reality, the Soviet rocket program was pitiful. The R-7 could barely function as a viable weapon. It weighed three hundred tons and operated on liquid oxygen fuel. That made it so that when the rockets were fueled up they were in danger of exploding. American missiles used solid fuel, which enabled them to be launched on about ten minutes’ notice. The Russians, though, couldn’t keep their missiles fueled up all of the time. That meant it took them hours to prepare them for launch, making them very vulnerable to attack.” (p. 266)
Of course, the standard objection is, ‘but how were we to know?’ It turns out, it didn’t matter, the agenda was already set, facts be damned! This is an all too familiar occurrence within the standard operating procedure for government. Look over there! A threat! We must act immediately! For example, take the infamous declaration of President George W. Bush when he said that, “we have to abandon free market principles to save the free market system” or, “we must pass the bill to see what is in the bill,” as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared in 2010. Perhaps more to the point would be the Afghanistan Papers, where U.S. officials and their media lapdogs willingly misled the American people regarding progress, or lack thereof, in Afghanistan.
In the end, when the reality of the situation is brought to light, those “looking out for the people” newsmen, after years of willingly misleading the public, will downplay the situation under the well worn guise of, they were just following orders, doing their best, how could they have known, etc. It’s just another random side note in a never ending war that the general public will have easily forgotten when the next faux crisis emerges. Just remember to stand and pledge allegiance, otherwise everyone will get all fired up. Invade and occupy a county on false pretenses for eighteen years and kill thousands upon thousands? Meh. The War State prefers that you are at odds with your fellow man, since it inherently requires a distracted populace.
Although it was kept secret from the general population, the CIA and the government knew about the pitiful state of Soviet military capabilities, as Swanson recounts to the reader that “…after twelve failed launches, the CIA put into space its first spy satellite code-named Corona. It passed over Russia and found that their few intercontinental missiles were all at one launch facility, which made them vulnerable to a surprise attack. They also now had 200 bombers with questionable ability to reach the United States and seventy-eight missiles on about a dozen submarines that spent almost all of their time in port. The United States had more than an overwhelming nuclear strike advantage over the Soviet Union. Yes, there was a missile gap, but it was in favor of the United States.” (p. 296) The threat was fabricated; a blatant and outright falsification of data and if it could be done in this scenario, it could be easily done elsewhere. The stage was set for the CIA to run wild.
The CIA and Less Than Powerful Pieces of Paper
The implausibility of being able to centrally plan an entire economy made up of 327 million individual actors is akin to the implausibility of trying to reign in the War State. The mythological telling of an infallible system of checks and balances is laughable and any alleged constitutional limitations or constraints are most easily dispensed with. Rank and file bureaucrats, military leaders and most certainly the presidents are given plausible deniability and benefit of the doubt far beyond what any average civilian would receive during even the most routine investigation of the most basic crime.
When a black ops adventure goes awry, the president can and will deny giving authorization for that particular overreach and the military can and will claim that they thought the original authorization gave them the authority to proceed. It’s a win-win for both entities, for how can you question the heat of the moment decisions that a soldier made? He is just doing the best he can! This has been and continues to be the status quo when it comes to covert operations. Swanson explains it it in this passage:
“In theory, the CIA does not engage in any covert activity without the approval of the president and the oversight of Congress. In reality, there is so little oversight over agency activities that often the leaders of the agency itself do not know everything that is going on. The president often approves one covert operation only to have it spawn even more operations that no one at the top is responsible for. How can this be? As Clark Clifford, who served as an aide to Harry Truman and as secretary of defense for Lyndon Johnson explained, ‘on a number of occasions a plan for covert action has been presented to the NSC and authority requested for the CIA to proceed from point A to point B. The authority will be given and the action will be launched. When point B is reached, the persons in charge feel that it is necessary to go to point C and they assume that the original authorization gives them such a right. From point C, they go to D, and possibly E, and even further.’ This led to some bizarre results, and, when investigation is started, the excuse blandly presented was that the authority was obtained from the NSC before the project was launched.” (p. 100)
Lest one think that that is all in the past and that the U.S. has learned from its mistakes over the years, just this May, as recounted on this Antiwar.com article by Thomas Knapp, “a group of around 60 mercenaries attempted an amphibious landing at Macuto, on Venezuela’s Caribbean coast. They were quickly defeated and 13 of them—including two Americans, Airan Berry and Luke Denman—[were] captured.” Predictably, President Donald Trump has denied any association with, knowledge of, or involvement in the affair on the part of the U.S. government. Indeed, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The Constitution is unable to prevent or guard against these situations, yet isn’t that what everyone has been trained to say: the soldiers are over there defending our freedoms, our way of life, our Constitution? The CIA operates in an extra-constitutional manner everyday. Some may say that it’s just the fog of war and we should just get over it, but Swanson has an answer for that too, because it isn’t just CIA operatives taking the operation to an unauthorized level, it’s a systematic process of looting the American public:
“The agency funneled ten million dollars out of the Marshall Plan and laundered it through various bank accounts of American Italians, who in turn ‘donated’ the funds to CIA front organizations and the Christian Democratic political party in Italy as charitable tax deductions.” (p. 117)
It seems a little complicated, but this procedure had several justifications:
“…it enabled the individuals who agreed to assist the CIA to do so without violating United States tax laws and it gave the CIA an internal audit procedure to provide a check on the flow and amount of money.” (p. 117)
This is just one declassified example, there are no doubt countless other operations buried in classified archives. If it was all on the up and up, one would expect for it to have happened out in the open, under the watchful eye of Congress, but it remained a secret until well after the Cold War ended. Untraceable cash, who wouldn’t want that?
“It was a global money-laundering scheme that stayed secret until well after the cold war ended. Where the plan flourished in Europe and in Asia, so would American spies. ‘We’d look the other way and give them a little help,’ said Colonel R. Allen Griffin, who ran the Marshall Plan’s Far East division…Secret funds were the heart of secret operations. The CIA now had an unfailing source of untraceable cash.” (p. 32)
Now let’s take a step back and think of George Floyd, murdered in the street for trying to pass a counterfeit note, or Eric Garner, murdered on the sidewalk for selling loose cigarettes. When the average citizen is purported to have committed a crime, the police descend, swarm, and pounce. There is no law so trivial that, if broken, one could die at the hands of the police, but when the government commits a similar crime on an exponentially greater scale? It’s no big deal; it’s business as usual.
Swanson recounts a myriad of CIA black operations the world over and specifically reminds us of the countless operations in South America, an all but forgotten era for a population overwhelmed with, and raised on, continued and never ending wars in the Middle East. Just like the CIA adventures in South America, the current Middle East adventures will be but a mere blip on the sordid historical map of U.S. interventions. There is no sphere of influence in which the War State will not participate and regardless of the outcomes of continued misadventures the funding is continually expanded regardless of the rhetoric of the parity in power.
The Permanent Government
The permanent government might seem to be a misnomer to the lay reader. Of course, one might proclaim, we need a permanent government! We should be permanently governed, for without government there would be chaos! This sentiment is odd indeed, given the daily news cycle confirming that we are surrounded by chaos. I can hear the common argument that without government, problem ‘A’ would exist, so easily forgetting that that problem already exists in the current government controlled paradigm.
One can see the permanent continuous government in action with President Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Syria, do you remember that? It wasn’t that long ago, but critics across the political spectrum were quick to come out of the woodwork to lambast the President on this decision. It is when you are getting attacked from all sides that you know you are getting to the heart of the matter. We are only a few months removed from this situation and many have already forgotten the hysteria surrounding the decision after being quickly guided to the coronavirus hysteria and non-stop coverage of rioting in the wake of the murder of George Flyod by the knee of a Minneaplis police officer. The United States is still killing people in the Middle East, in Africa and countless other countries the world over; the war machine rolls on even in the midst of a global pandemic and racial unrest.
In conclusion, I’ll leave you with a stunning admission from an unlikely source, a person whose job it was to advance and enable the War State and the State writ large in the name of American Exceptionalism, court historian, Arthur Schlesigner, Jr:
“The permanent government soon developed its own cozy alliances with committees of Congress, its own ties to the press, its own national constituencies. It began to exude the feeling that Presidents come and go but it went on forever. The permanent government was, as such politically neutral; its essential commitment was to doing things as they had been done before…” inevitably, this surrendered, “presidential government to the permanent government.“ (p. 245)
Onward to the next war. Given the current circumstances surrounding police power and government regulatory overreach in the Covid Era in the United States, perhaps a new chapter needs to be written: The War State Comes Home.
Denver is jumping on the plastic bag tax train, joining ranks with New York, California and several other Colorado jurisdictions, but will the bag tax be effective at changing habits or improving environmental conditions?
Admittedly, there are far worse tyrannies to suffer than a plastic bag tax, but the subtleties underlying never-ending government expansion and continual attempts at modifying human behavior through legislation are always worth dissecting. Last week, the Denver City Council voted unanimously to approve Council Bill No. 19-1176 which outlines the parameters surrounding a ten cent per bag tax (they refer to it as fee) on single use plastic or paper bags, to be collected by retailers at the point of sale.
The local coverage of this measure is typically presented as a win-win with the presumption that there could never be any ill effects or unintended consequences. Before delving into the details, what might be the most odd thing is that there is a significant amount of media coverage and public comments on social media about a bag tax, of all things. Of course, most of it is self-congratulatory green-washing, but contrast that with the coverage, or lack thereof, of the Afghanistan Papers, wherein the U.S. leadership, intelligence agencies and the Military outright lied to the public for eighteen plus years and revealed that, as Kym Robinson put it in a recent Libertarian Institute article, there was, “No real mission statement, a flawed and corrupt puppet government, massive amounts of waste, uncertain allies and enemies, incoherent unit cohesion and poor communications between allies, unnecessary deaths but ultimately murder.” No one seems to care about that, but a bag tax? Let’s work that into the news cycle every day! Let’s ban the bags and ignore the fact that the military is the biggest polluter on the planet. But I digress, back to the matter at hand.
First off, if the plastic bag tax is such a good idea, why are there so many exemptions? The list of exemptions includes any customer who participates in a federal or state food assistance program, bags used to package bulk items (fruit, vegetables, nails and screws, bags to wrap flowers and bakery goods, etc.), bags smaller than seven inches by nine inches (why not six by eight?), bags from pharmacies, newspaper bags, door hanger bags, dry cleaning bags, and bags sold in packages containing multiple bags for uses such as food storage, garbage, pet waste or yard waste (more on that later). Also exempt are, from the legislation, “restaurants or other businesses where retail sales are clearly secondary and incidental to the primary activity occurring within the business or any temporary vendor or temporary events.” That “clearly secondary” verbiage is a classic legislative loophole where if you have the right connections or know the right person you can find an exemption for your business. All in, of the six pages of legislation, nearly a full page is dedicated to exemptions.
In theory, the intent behind the legislation is to change people’s habits. This is true, there will be fewer disposable bags used, because when you tax something, you get less of it, but there is one habit that even the most ardent supporters of reusable bags fail at miserably: washing the reusable bag. Even if the bag does get washed, it won’t be washed it every day, and from the house to the car to the store to the shopping cart, all along the way, you are collecting, transporting and disseminating bacteria to share with everyone else. Where has the person standing next to you traveled in the last day, week or month? Did that bag previously go to the gym with them and what was stored in it? The locations where the bag has been and the types of items stored in the reusable bags are endless. Indeed, a recent study found that only about 3% of people regularly wash their bags. If that doesn’t make you shudder, consider this: in that same study, bacteria was found in 99% of the bags that were tested. That same study also found that half carried coliform bacteria and 8% carried E. coli, an indicator of fecal contamination.
People do adapt and change and perhaps some will wash their bags more frequently, but one thing is verifiably true, and that is that people will just switch from one product to another. With a disposable bag ban in place, studies have shown, as referenced in this FEE.org article, that demand for other bags (4 gallon size, for instance, sold by the roll) to be used as small trash can liners will increase substantially. These types of bags are exempt from the tax in the legislation and are typically thicker than the disposable ones, which ultimately means more plastic is used; exactly the opposite from the stated goals of the legislation.
In a rare moment of honesty, the legislation does acknowledge two economic realities. First, the tax will adversely affect those on the lower end of the economic spectrum and thus, the legislation has exempted anyone on a federal or state food assistance plan. Secondly, if you tax something, you’ll get less of it. If only this economic logic were applied to all other multifarious ordinances.
Finally, what legislation would be complete without the ever popular “you’ll get something for free” section? Of the ten cent per bag fee, the retail store may retain four cents that can be used for educational and informational signage, staff training (ostensibly to train them in dealing with annoyed customers) and to provide “free” reusable carryout bags to customers. How is it free? The customer was literally just forced to pay for it. And since when is it the job of a grocery store to educate the public about plastics, or anything else for that matter? This section also highlights the concept of legal plunder, as small businesses, with lower overhead and razor thin profit margins will feel the brunt of the implementation of this tax, when compared to their big box competitors.
There was nothing preventing stores from implementing a plastic bag tax on their own, it just becomes much easier to export morality to the state, dodge the question and say that the state mandated it rather than feeling the economic consequences of self implementation. The green-washing trade off would have been worth it for some stores and not so much for others. It is telling that for all the green-washing rhetoric that has become de-rigueur for some big businesses, that rather than taking the lead and putting their money where their mouth is, they have waited for the state to force the implementation of a bag tax, for the planet, for humanity, and all that.
Think of the owner of a corner market in a lower income neighborhood. Perhaps that owner, seeking to help out their customers, continues to offer bags at the point of sale but gets caught by the bag police one too many times and goes out of business due to the requisite fines or not getting their license renewed. How does that help the neighborhood? It certainly forces them to go farther from home to get to the big box store.
Shockingly, government has gotten in the way of government with the implementation of this legislation. There is a thirty year old state statute on the books (1989 House Bill 1300) which prevents local governments from regulating the use of plastic materials or products. In short, it’s against the law for Colorado cities to ban plastic bags. Of course, since this is the state violating its own laws, nothing will happen. If it were you or me? That would be a whole different story. This is a feature, not a bug, of an overbearing regulatory state, where the state can’t even manage to follow its own rules. Up next, you’ll see legislation requiring reusable bag producers to print washing instructions on the bags and the legal creep will continue all the way down to your own home. So, dear citizen, how often do you clean your house?
On a recent outing to Odell Brewing’s new brewhouse and taproom in Denver’s RiNo neighborhood, a burgeoning part of town filled with breweries, coffee shops and twenty-somethings, I’m reminded of just how pervasive government is when it comes to influencing what can be built and where. This place seemingly has it all: plenty of seating and bars on two levels, a rooftop patio and a grade level patio. It’s kid friendly, dog friendly and there are plenty of unique beers only available at this particular location. One beer of note is The Real Dill Pils, a surprisingly delicious and refreshing beer on a hot summer day and a fantastic find on a Sunday afternoon of brewery hopping. There is a restaurant right next door and a food truck could pull up at any moment, so what’s not to like?
In Colorado, if you are trying to sell your own beer, you are required to brew in the same place that you sell. There are other compulsory distribution options, but if you want to establish a tasting room where you can sell your own branded beer, then the only option is to brew in the same place that you are selling. Even well established breweries cannot simply brew beer at an offsite and more cost effective location and then sell it at a remote, free standing tasting room. This severely hampers small business development in the beer industry. One of the great things about the Odell Brewhouse in RiNo is that they are producing unique, collaborative and creative beers at this location – which is great for beer lovers. But, this business decision has clearly been influenced by government regulations. Within the context of what they were “allowed” to build and operate at this location, the decision might make sense, but it’s hard to tell, perhaps a true stand alone tasting room would have been a better economic decision, but the regulatory state has already decided for the businessman; that’s not even an option.
The development possibilities for small businesses are endless in the realm of small batch and homebrewing industries. For instance, there could be consortiums of small, independent brewers (brewing off-site) who band together to have their beers featured in a neighborhood tap room. It’s very possible this business model makes no sense, but that’s not for government to decide. In a beer mecca city like Denver, there should be vast amounts of creativity when it comes to beer production, delivery and sale, but within the realm of government coercion, creativity and innovation are stifled. True brewing freedom cannot exist without economic freedom.
But, what about safety? Can you hear the objections from the masses? We can’t just have brewers willy-nilly brewing beer off-site in unsanitary conditions and selling to the unknowing public! Many are quick to lean on the crutch of government regulation forgetting that homebrewers, small brewers and businesses in general realize that consumer confidence is key. Independent third party testing agencies would spring into action to provide a safe-to-drink certification service, encouraged by the brewers and consumers themselves, all outside the realm of government coercion. Even if a brewer decided to forego third party certification, that’s an economic decision for them to make. Would you drink a beer from a homebrewer that your were not personally familiar with? Every person will answer that question differently. Let us not forget that one of the most egregious cases of tainted alcohol came via the hand of government, who during Prohibition purposely poisoned re-distilled industrial grade alcohol (used in paint and cleaning products) in a process referred to as denaturing which killed up to ten thousand people when enterprising bootleggers reprocessed the products back into something vaguely drinkable, who then sold it to an unknowing public, poison and all. But, I digress.
Within the small physical space of the brewhouse and taproom, there is a massive amount of government economic intrusion. Think of the restaurant right next door that should be able to open up directly to the patio of the brewery and sell food, but can’t. Think of the restaurant right next door that should be able to offer micro brew beer to their patrons but can’t (not without a distributor or obtaining a license themselves, that is). Or, not without Odell wanting to be their own distributor at this location. Which they could be, but why? Who benefits? Why all this extraneous government intrusion into what should be a simple economic calculation? Would beer sell at this restaurant? Maybe not, but that’s not for government to decide.
Think of all the government bureaucracy associated with building permits and regulatory compliance with setting up a brewhouse and taproom compared to a stand alone tasting room. It all adds up and the consumer pays for it. Think of all the standard government talking points about “helping the little guy,” yet the reality is that the little guy is constantly regulated out of the beer industry.
In the 1900’s, prior to Prohibition, there were over 4,000 breweries operating in the U.S. with the number effectively falling to zero during Prohibition. After Prohibition was repealed, the number of breweries rose to around 30. Small breweries were absolutely decimated and in the ensuing decades, a handful of larger breweries were able to command and control an unprecedented amount of the beer market. This sordid story is improving for smaller breweries as their numbers are continually on the rise, finally surpassing Pre-Prohibition numbers about ten years ago. Alas, overbearing government regulations are doing nothing but extinguishing the flames of creativity and stifling an industry based on individuality and entrepreneurship. But, rest assured, government is here to help.
Looming over the North Dakota plains lies a massive and ominous concrete pyramid, each face displaying four large discs leering out over the surrounding terrain, as if keeping watch. The mammoth structure rises seventy-nine feet above the surface and extends fifty-three feet below grade with the total building encompassing 127,000 SF, but these are not the building’s most defining characteristics. The construction of this gargantuan building and surrounding military complex exceeded six billion dollars, but the facility was only active and in operation for three days. Say what?
An eerie reminder of a bygone era, the now abandoned Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex, in Nekoma, ND, encompasses 470 acres and contains 46 underground missile silos in addition to the massive concrete pyramid. Construction on the project began in the 1960s and was not complete until 1975. The discs on the side of the pyramid were state-of-the-art radar technology that, in theory, could be used to detect multiple incoming missiles simultaneously without having to maneuver a more traditional large mesh dish. It was purported to be able to provide a six minute warning and could hit a target on thirty seconds notice.
Visually surreal, the facility is more reminiscent of a fictional movie set from the 1960’s film Dr. Strangeglove than anything grounded in reality. In this case, truth is stranger than fiction and the circumstances regarding how a facility like this could come into existence at such a tremendous cost, yet abandoned so quickly, provides a fitting catalyst regarding the rise of the military industrial complex, or The War State, as put more succinctly by author Michael Swanson.
The Nature of the State
The State, despite its claim of being “for the people,” exists solely to feed itself and to obtain more power. It works the same under any form of government, be it Communism or Representative Democracy, both will feed the population with lies to prop up the belief in its necessity. Indeed, the common view of the U.S. population is that the War State was an entity that grew out of necessity. A necessity that could only be handled by a giant military-security apparatus to direct, plan and navigate an increasingly complex world of international geopolitical tensions. Author Michael Swanson casts aside this narrative in lieu of an interpretation focusing on the alliance with, and cartelization of, big business, manufacturing, government and perhaps most importantly, the opinion-molding military experts. These so-called experts were able to convince not only an entire generation of independent minded civilians of the necessity of their existence, but were able to convince the vast majority of infallible top government officials as well. This unholy alliance of business and government was a natural progression of the cartelization that became de rigueur throughout the Progressive Era, as most explicitly evidenced by the railroad, petroleum, iron and steel, and sugar industries (or the monopolization of Public Utilities), as painstakingly detailed by Murray Rothbard in his book The Progressive Era.
The existence of the Nekoma facility is indicative of the nature of imperialist bureaucracies, where doing more of the same is the norm, regardless of necessity. It’s easy and tempting to wag our collective finger at failed Communist states throughout history, pointing out the economic fallacies and planning blunders, but there are some uncomfortable similarities when one looks at the War State and begs the question: is the U.S. really all that different? We live out our lives under a continuous government left unchecked and detached from reality, one that creates useless programs and their requisite physical manifestations like the Nekoma facility, all under the illusion of democracy, freedom and protection from the evil-doers.
Circular Logic as Justification
A common theme of any centrally planned government is using circular logic to justify any number of allegedly necessary programs. A mind boggling example of this is recounted in The War State where,“Dmitri Ustinov, who served as the Soviet defense minister, decided that he didn’t need any more nuclear missiles. One of the heads of Russian weapons production asked him to order a dozen more rockets anyway. ‘What will I do with them?’ Ustinov asked. ‘But if you don’t order them, how will I feed the workers?’ the weapons producer responded. Ustinov put in the order.” (p401)No doubt this is Communism in action, but are we any different? Stories abound regarding the wastefulness of the U.S. military, where if you don’t use up an allotted budget, that funding will go away in the next cycle, or wildly expensive toilet seats being purchased via no-bid construction contracts, or criminal investigations into petty theft at a chow hall (for more on this absurdity, give a listen to the Biting the Bullet podcast, a weekly show where three former marines clue you into the utter wastefulness surrounding the military writ large, among other topics).
The lies presented as the justifications for the necessity of military installations like Nekoma went hand in hand with the threat that all of humanity was about to be obliterated at the hands of the Soviets! Action must be taken! The wildly exaggerated news stories parroted by state controlled media outlets caused many Americans in the 1950’s to live their day to day lives in a constant state of terror, even though, “the Soviet Union didn’t even have the capability to launch a missile that was able to reach the United States until the 1960s. Nor did it have a viable bomber force. In the 1950s, Air Force General Curtis LeMay said he had the ability to order SAC bombers to attack the Soviet Union and destroy all of its war-making capabilities ‘without losing a man to their defenses.’ Americans were completely safe, but they lived in constant fear.” (p294) The experts had spoken: fear for your life, citizen and leave the thinking to us, we’ll protect you.
NSC-68 and Propaganda
The standard narrative that the U.S. military is underfunded and the resultant consequences will be dire if increased funding is not provided is ever present and has been for some time. Even now, almost seventy years later, the myth lives on. A willing media parrots the government lines through a myriad of sources and beltway think tanks where it serves the propaganda machine well. To wit: earlier this year, as relayed by Ryan McMaken in this article where, “…in the wake of this year’s  budget deal, researchers from the American Enterprise Institute claimed the binge still was not enough. For them, a trillion dollars per year is just barely enough to ‘avoid outright disaster.’ ”
This message is very intentional and was first codified via NSC-68, a National Security Policy paper concerning the United States Objectives and Programs for National Security. The initial report and its subsequent modifications advocated for a large expansion in the U.S. military budget and increased military aid to U.S. allies. NSC-68 described the challenges facing the United States in cataclysmic terms involving the destruction not only of the Republic but the whole of humanity as well.
The reality on the ground was far different and The War State continually lays bare the propaganda regarding the threat of the Soviet Union which,“was not as powerful as the American politicians, reporters, and national security bureaucrats linked to the military-industrial complex claimed it was. NSC-68… argued that if the country did not vastly increase its defense spending, then in just a few years Russia would be on track to produce enough conventional and nuclear weapons that they would be able to completely run over Western Europe and defeat the United States in an atomic attack.” The theory here being that the U.S. needed to out-compete the military buildup with the Soviet Union and scare them into submission.
It wasn’t so much the military build up per se, but the potential economic power that the Soviets were worried about, as clarified by John Mueller in his book Atomic Obsession (via this article), “the Soviets during the Cold War were not primarily deterred by the size of the US conventional military, or even by its nuclear arsenal. Instead, they were deterred by the ‘the enormous potential of the American war machine’ which existed not in already-made weapons, but in the form of the world’s largest economy. In other words, the best defense is a capitalist one in which enormous amounts of wealth make it clear that the potential for successful war-making is enormous.” This all to say nothing of the conditions of Soviet occupied East Germany, where a wall had to be constructed to keep people in, the economics of it all should have been obvious. Wouldn’t a vast economic powerhouse who ostensibly was set to out-compete the U.S. be able to provide living conditions that would be they envy of the world? But, the experts deemed that the untouched U.S. economy was going to get steamrolled by a depleted and decimated Communist economy and fear won out.
They Saw What they Wanted to See
Delving into the concept of the continued cartelization of the U.S. economy at the hands of the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex, Swanson reminds the reader that, “During the Eisenhower administration, politicians, such as Senator Henry Jackson of Washington, linked to Boeing and other defense contractors, claimed that the Soviet Union had produced so many bombers that a ‘bomber gap’ existed, while the Gaither Report [a Security Resources Panel report presented to President Eisenhower that recommended a significant strengthening of U.S. strategic offensive and defensive military capabilities] claimed that by 1960 Khrushchev [Former Premier of the Soviet Union] would have the ability to launch a first-strike missile launch that would cripple the ability of the United States to retaliate. Such claims helped complete the transformation of the United States into a permanent war state by the end of the 1950s, but none of them were even close to reality. (p264)” Context is crucial and if you are trying to secure lucrative government contracts, you might leave out the details and play up the scary imagery, especially in an era where only a handful of government controlled news outlets exist and the reports are covering a country that is thousands of miles away, it was easy to mislead the people. The government knew the reality and allowed the misinformation to spread, junior high civics book propaganda be damned, we’ve got a war to sell!
Swanson delves into the details and provides the reader with the much needed context in the following paragraphs:
…in 1955, the Soviet Union had plenty of nuclear bombs and was more than capable of exploding them in tests, but it had no way to deliver any of them as a weapon against an American city. The American B-52 bomber could fly 7,343 miles when refueled, which was far enough to reach the Soviet Union, but the Russia M-4… couldn’t reach the United States, because its designers couldn’t figure out an easy way to refuel it in the air. The M-4 could only fly five thousand miles, which was too short for it to reach either coast of the United States from the closest point of the Soviet Union. (p265)
What is more, the Soviet Union had only four of these M-4 bombers. When the Russians put on a major air show, they took the four bombers and had them fly around in wide circles to give the impression that there were dozens of them. Khrushchev was pleased when American newspapers reported on a supposed “bomber gap” thanks to the Bison bomber. They saw what they wanted to see. (p265)
In reality, the Soviet rocket program was pitiful. The R-7 could barely function as a viable weapon. It weighed three hundred tons and operated on liquid oxygen fuel. That made it so that when the rockets were fueled up they were in danger of exploding. American missiles used solid fuel, which enabled them to be launched on about ten minutes’ notice. The Russians, though, couldn’t keep their missiles fueled up all of the time. That meant it took them hours to prepare them for launch, making them very vulnerable to attack. (p266)
All this in just two pages of the 410 page book and there’s plenty more information to go around, but it’s easier for the media to parrot the old standard lines of the absolute necessity of a huge war state apparatus and it is repeated ad nauseum on news shows and reruns of WWII era documentaries. Unfortunately, the lies and falsehoods are still being parroted today, even on newly produced shows. For instance, a segment from the Science Channel’s show Mysteries of the Abandoned (Season 2, Episode 2) expounds upon the alleged necessity of the Nekoma facility and is described by self proclaimed Military experts thusly:
“[The Nekoma Facility] Had to be able to target multiple incoming missiles [from the Soviet Union] all at the same time.”
“You had ‘seconds to decide,’ or was it a decoy?”
“To make us feel safe to take out a warhead headed to the mainland US.”
All the hand picked, nonsensical, and easily repeatable Cold War talking points were packed into this short, ten minute segment, not backed by fact, but by fiction given the previously presented information conveyed in The War State. But, how do you get access to the military base to take amazing drone footage? You play their game. You get to sell ads and they get to continue the propaganda; the public eats it up and the fairy-tale lives on.
Many may be quick to say that hindsight is 20-20 and those in charge of the safety of the world did their best with the limited information that they had, but without a doubt, the information to make a different decision was available. The CIA had the intel and the experts deliberately mis-lead everyone involved:
Intelligence analysts were about to know without a doubt what the Russians actually had. After twelve failed launches, the CIA put into space its first spy satellite code-named Corona. It passed over Russia and found that their few intercontinental missiles were all at one launch facility, which made them vulnerable to a surprise attack. They also now had 200 bombers with questionable ability to reach the United States and seventy-eight missiles on about a dozen submarines that spent almost all of their time in port. The United States had more than an overwhelming nuclear strike advantage over the Soviet Union. Yes, there was a missile gap, but it was in favor of the United States. (p296 [emphasis added])
In the end, the Nakoma facility came about through lies, deliberate misinformation and propaganda, without which the whole system would have come tumbling down. This whole situation is perhaps best summarized by Christopher Black, in his essay, Western Imperialism and the Use of Propaganda:
The primary concern they [U.S. government officials] have, in order to preserve their control, is for the preservation of the new feudal mythology that they have created: that the world is a dangerous place, that they are the protectors, that the danger is omnipresent, eternal, and omnidirectional, comes from without, and comes from within. The mythology is constructed and presented through all media…All available information systems are used to create and maintain scenarios and dramas to convince the people that they, the protectors, are the good and all others are the bad. We are bombarded with this message incessantly.
The War State provides much needed clarity and removes the veil in front of our eyes. In this age of plentiful information, it should be easy to counter the official narrative, but plentiful information is a blessing and a curse, sometimes it is easier to just tune out. If only everyone in the 1950’s had done that, instead of tuning in to the nightly news, the Cold War may have fizzled away. We should be wise to never proffer up deference to a group of self appointed elites who have been proven time and again to lie, manipulate and mislead on matters of most grave importance. And as Ludwig von Mises reminds us in Human Action, that with, “such vital matters, blind reliance upon experts and uncritical acceptance of popular catch words and prejudices is tantamount to the abandonment of self-determination and a yielding to other people’s domination.” These words still ring true today, just as when they were written in the 1940’s.
I must confess, the absurdity of me writing a review of Scott Horton’s book is akin to the absurdity of the war in Afghanistan, albeit without the hundreds of thousands of dead bodies and billions of government no-bid military contracts and after eighteen years, nothing to show for it.
Sticking with absurdity, I’ll start with a passage from a different book, Scoop, by Evelyn Waugh, a fictional account of a fledgling reporter sent to cover a “promising war” in a faraway land. Bear with me. The passage involves the reporter receiving:
…a radiogram which had arrived that morning and was causing him grave bewilderment. It read:
I feel the same as William after devouring this thoroughly researched and well documented book, including over 1100 footnotes from myriad sources from all sides of the political spectrum. I feel this way not on account of illegible or confusing writing, for the book is laid out is such a manner that any average person could follow along and track with the absurdity of it all, but on account of the mind-numbing fallacies, falsehoods and flat out ahistorical bungling of the reality of the facts on the ground in the Middle East for the last fifty years that have led to our current, ah, situation, in Afghanistan.
If you thought the first quote was nonsensical, try this passage from Fool’s Errand and think of the concept of entangling alliances,“the U.S. was bribing one ally to back another ally, forcing a third ally to back our own and our first ally’s enemies, which required the U.S. to turn to the first ally for help against the third, and then around again. This has continued for more than a dozen years. In fact, the reality is even more convoluted than this. Our other allies, the Saudi royals, have continued to finance the Taliban resistance against the U.S. all along as well, since the Taliban serves as a check on the power of Afghanistan’s ethnic Hazaras, who are Shi’ites aligned with Saudi Arabia’s nemesis, Iran.”2 Got it? That might be tough to follow out of context from the chapter within which it was written, but it certainly serves to illustrate the insanity of this whole Afghanistan affair. How could anyone sort all that out? How do you define victory? How do you ever not continue to create enemies in a scenario like that?
After reading this book, there is no rational human being who can justify further military action in Afghanistan, yet the war machine grinds on. A war that, by no conceivable metric can be said that the U.S. is winning, or ever can win, continues to be waged. Every strategy has been tried:
[Retired US Army] Col. Bacevich observed about the war in Afghanistan, and the broader War on Terrorism, “We’ve done counterinsurgency, we’ve done counter-terrorism, we’ve done advise-and-assist, we’ve done targeted assassination, we’ve done nation-building… We have run the gamut of approaches in terms of tactics and methods, and none of them have yielded the success that proponents have argued that we would achieve. So you come back to that basic question, maybe the entire enterprise is misguided.”3
The military has tried to buy off every local warlord only to be double crossed in the end. Every last stolen tax dollar has been blown on an amount that far exceeds the ENTIRE Marshall Plan from WWII, which included aid to 16 West European countries. Rights for women? Schools for kids? Where is the progress on those fronts? And if our barometer for success involves installing a tiny little baby government in a box that will grow and flourish and sprout a glorious “constitution, providing a bicameral legislature, proportional representation…an independent judicature, religious liberty, secular education, habeas corpus, free trade, joint stock banking, chartered corporations, and numerous other agreeable features,”4 then we most certainly have failed. Afghanistan is the farthest you can imagine from these lofty ideals, as Horton has succinctly summarized in the following passage:
If leaders of the Western nations are truly attempting to initiate a new Enlightenment era of democratic values in the Arab and Muslim worlds, as they claim, perhaps trying to live by our highest principles and leading by example — promoting natural, individual rights and self-government in the free market of ideas — might be a more effective strategy than the current policy of propping up some of the world’s most repressive governments, while launching invasions and carrying out regime change operations against others. So far, these methods have only led to massive casualties, sectarian civil war and a return to fundamentalism by people who very well might otherwise have been much more receptive to the more positive aspects of our ideas and traditions.5
Throughout the book, Horton is banking on many having so easily forgotten, or never learned, the true history of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. To be sure, most of the soldiers who are over there fighting now, weren’t even born when the seeds of this disastrous war were planted. Hollywood is assuming the same thing too, with new movies like 12 Strong that only serve as a continuation in the conflating of the factions Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the minds of the average American. They are all the same over there, right? They all just want to get us and our freedoms forever and ever. Assuming a lack of learned history is a fair assumption. Grab any ole joker off the street and ask him: what was the Carter Doctrine? Follow up with: would you consider the 1990’s “peacetime”? For a bonus round ask: how long have the Iraqi people been living under wartime conditions? Right about now, I’m assuming you are thinking wait, wait, wait, why are we talking about Iraq and not Afghanistan? The talking heads on the nonstop news cycles like to get us to think in small bubbles: just believe us, we have experts on this show, we will tell you what’s really going on over there. We have no sense of historical continuity or understanding of societies beyond the bullshit lines that we draw on a map that define countries for us. Countries that we can’t even locate on a map, but still! We have been programmed to forget that, “to the population of Saudi Arabia, and especially the bin Ladenites, these state borders are meaningless; they view Arabia as one holy peninsula.”6 Further, the concept of a unified Afghanistan is most certainly unachievable, it becomes an eternal struggle pitting one faction against another; always has been and always will be, according to Nizamuddin Nashir, a district governor in Kunduz province:
Mark my words, the moment the Americans leave, the civil war will begin. This country will be divided into twenty-five or thirty fiefdoms, each with its own government. Mir Alam will take Kunduz. Atta will take Mazar-e-Sharif. Dostum will take Sheberghan. The Karzais will take Kandahar. The Haqqanis will take Paktika. If these things don’t happen, you can burn my bones when I die.7
But enough with the niceties, there are some general concepts that stick out throughout the book that bear emphasizing. Admittedly, boiling this immense work down to a handful of general concepts is difficult and a little unfair given the all-encompassing nature of the book, but it’s a good framework. The fiasco that is the war in Afghanistan is tied up with the history of the U.S. meddling in the Middle East, the U.S. creating distortions of power leading to entangling alliances, the desire and futility of attempting to change entire societies by force, the perpetual simple answers to “why do they hate us?” (trademark, Team America), and always looking forward so we can forget the past.
Damn You, History:
Alas, there is never really a perfect place to start when discussing history, but let’s start with the good ole days when our once ally, now existential threat and “we must-not-back-down-from foe,” the USSR, was mired in their own war in Afghanistan. This was a time when the U.S. was helping Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support what were referred to then as “freedom fighters,” in their battle against the USSR. The U.S. wasn’t worried so much about the freedom of the fighters, of course, they were only trying to give the USSR their own Vietnam. There is such a delicious irony in the following interaction between President Jimmy Carter and his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who boasted that when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979, he sent a memo to [Carter]: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.”8 History never repeats, eh?
The U.S. began, in response to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the implementation of the “Carter Doctrine,” that is, an attempt to create an environment of “permanent U.S. supremacy in the Persian Gulf [which] had America’s military presence spreading throughout the Arabian Peninsula.”9 This was expanded throughout the 1980’s under President Reagan and ultimately, “seventy more permanent bases were later added in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates…as the U.S. prepared to wage the first Iraq war in 1990-1991.”10 It’s not hard to imagine this process creating resentment in any number of sovereign people across the Arabian Peninsula.
The U.S. quickly transformed the Carter doctrine into a concept of “Dual Containment” under the George H.W. Bush administration, playing both sides in the Iran-Iraq war (you need look no further than the current war hysteria brewing regarding Syria to see this concept in real time, let’s arm both sides, what could go wrong?). This was a era of not worrying about Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s, since he was using them against the Iran. Another sordidly ironic historical moment occurred when George H.W. Bush boastfully proclaimed that we had finally kicked “Vietnam Syndrome,” all the while the seeds of what was to become the longest war in U.S. history were being sown. War is plenty devastating in and of itself, but the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN and U.S. after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 were devastating to the people caught up in the war. Sanctions, of course, is a nicer sounding word for what it really is: a blockade of essential foods, medicines and other basic necessities (for a current example of this, take a look at the current U.S. and Saudi Arabia blockade of Yemen). Bill Clinton oversaw and continued these sanctions throughout the 1990’s, but finally (hooray?), in 1996, the UN Oil for Food program was implemented. Unfortunately, as Horton reminds us, “it was far too little, too late for hundreds of thousands of people. According to the United Nations, as many as a million people died of this deprivation, more than half of them children, in what Americans called ‘peacetime.’”11 Nevermind Clinton’s bombing campaign in the Balkans; but that’s a whole other topic.
The fallacy that 9/11 was a surprise attack out of the blue that never could have been predicted has been parroted around U.S. lore for so long, it is refreshing to have Horton recount the plain as daylight rationales for why anyone would want to attack the U.S. This was readily admitted by a, “senior official in the George W. Bush administration [who] admitted, [F]atwas from Osama… cited the effects of sanctions on Iraqi children and the presence of U.S. troops as a sacrilege that justified his jihad.”12 In a brutally honest fashion, Horton reminds us that, “September 11 was part of the cost of containing Saddam. No containment, no U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. No U.S. troops there, then bin Laden might still be redecorating mosques and boring friends with stories of his mujahideen days in the Khyber Pass.”13
There are numerous additional accounts of grievances against the U.S. leading up to 9/11, but let’s take that part of out of the equation and act as if history began on 9/11 and that it truly was an unforeseeable event. There was a chance to end this war quickly. Multiple offers from the Taliban were made to extradite bin Laden to the U.S., but they were turned down. A few days after the bombing of Afghanistan began, the Taliban even went so far as to agree to hand over bin Laden to any country, without evidence. This was still not good enough to stave off the U.S. invasion.14 This was never about getting bin Laden, much to the chagrin of every freedom loving, flag waving, red-blooded American, no, this was about creating a never ending war. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even stated as much, according to journalist Bob Woodward, “Rumsfeld worried that a coalition built around the goal of taking out al Qaeda would fall apart once they succeeded in that mission, making it more difficult to continue the war on terrorism elsewhere. In other words, if the U.S.A. won by defeating the enemy, the war would be over. So, to avoid that problem, they would have to be far more ambiguous about just who was to be included as enemy targets in the war.”15 We let bin Laden get away. This was deliberate, intentional and this is the devastating heart of the matter, not six months after 9/11, the hunt for bin Laden had been all but called off. From the book:
…whatever the motivation, the decision made to focus on hiring local warlords to fight the Taliban regime, instead of focusing on finding Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda allies as quickly as possible, provided enough time for many in bin Laden’s core group, those most responsible for the deadly attack on the United States, to make a run for the border — east toward Pakistan. In December 2001, the CIA, Army Delta Force and their Northern Alliance allies finally tracked down and cornered al Qaeda at Tora Bora in the White Mountains of eastern Afghanistan. This was where the plan to outsource America’s fight to the Northern Alliance and other associated warlords proved to be a disaster. Warlord Hajji Zaman later laughed that he had taken millions in cash from the CIA and then helped escort Osama bin Laden and his friends across the border anyway.
Berntsen [former CIA Field Commander] was sent home in the middle of the ongoing battle of Tora Bora in mid-December. He later wrote in Jawbreaker that he just could not understand why the generals and politicians were so reluctant to send troops. Days and weeks had gone by with Berntsen and his men repeatedly requesting, even begging, for reinforcements over and over again.
If the Bush government had sent the marines after al Qaeda at Tora Bora, they could have captured or killed them in short order. But, would the American people have cared about all the claims that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was working with Osama bin Laden if bin Laden was already dead and the war was over, justice done, mission accomplished? Who would have supported the indefinite occupation of Afghanistan if al Qaeda’s leaders had already been killed?16
And so began our forever war.
Distortions of Power:
There is no way to sum up the tragedy that has befallen the people of Afghanistan in the ensuing years after bin Laden “slipped” across the border into Pakistan and the full weight of the U.S. military apparatus came crashing down on them. The only thing left holding the country together is the continued influx of foreign donor states flush with tax money and an endless foreign military presence, which unequivocally, the locals despise and that which is one of the most important reasons for continued insurgent attacks in Afghanistan and so-called “homegrown terrorism” back in the mainland U.S. We are always told the simplistic answer that its radical Islam. It’s never that we blew up someone’s family; it’s never the fact that the U.S. is the foreign invader.
What is left in Afghanistan is a plurality state with never ending instability due to continued American presence which only serves to induce continual proxy wars from local competing factions. There is an oft-repeated claim from the talking heads that once the U.S. leaves, civil war will break out. This is a true statement, but one that is guaranteed by the fact that the U.S. has propped up the National Unity Government with boatloads of cash and the might of its military; without it, that government could not exist on its own. Despite our lofty intentions, “whether the U.S. government throws in the towel now or years from now, the result will be the same: the Pashtun population will throw off whatever degree of rule the National Government attempts to maintain over them, and then, in all probability, they will be right back where they were in the 1990s, with a bloody civil war, possibly leading to Taliban dominance in all but the far north of the country.”17 Furthermore, since the puppet government exists solely because of the U.S. and other outside factions that are propping it up, the very people who are the alleged benefactors are completely left out of the process. There is zero accountability and no recourse for the people of Afghanistan. Adding insult to injury, once we do leave, all the “good work” of infrastructure projects, schools and roads (among other multifarious projects) that existed only with outside support will fall into disrepair and non-existence, leaving nothing but a wasteland ghost town.18 This should be an obvious question: how could anyone have faith in an illegitimate puppet government propped up by a foreign invader? Not only that, why would anyone trust the U.S., who will undoubtedly overthrow any “democratically elected” leader that isn’t to their liking? For reference, take a look at the recent history of Egypt, where “the loyal dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt was overthrown in a popular revolution in 2011, which ended when the conservative Islamist Muslim Brotherhood won the presidency and a bare majority in Parliament. America and Saudi Arabia’s allies in the Egyptian military overthrew the new government in a violent coup and bloody massacre a little more than a year later.”19 Sadly, this is all to common practice in the realm of U.S. foreign policy.
In Afghanistan, there is such a patchwork plurality of factions after thirty years of war, there is no way to back one side without creating an enemy on the other side; there is no way to “win” this war. But, for some reason, leaving is never entertained as an option. In fact, it is roundly dismissed as crazy talk. As with most government programs, reducing the size is never the goal and there is a tremendous incentive to game the system in your favor. Simply provide faulty intelligence, collect your cash and watch your old enemy meet his doom. Apparently, as Horton states, “the conclusion…is always that the government should do more. And when more does not work, it only proves to them that more should have been done sooner and more must be done now and in the future. It is acceptable to adjust strategies or excuses, sure, but never to give up.”20 Hell, I’ll do it. I give up. But, there is so much more to uncover and I encourage you to dig into this heroic and important book on your own. I’ll leave you with this one final passage from the book that really hammers it home. It ultimately comes down to one rampaging empire, drunk on hubris and power and we all just sit back here at home, ever sure to “support the troops,” keep quiet, watch Jeopardy and maybe march around with a pussy hat to “protest” a mean person (never a war), all the while half way across the world people die unimaginably horrible deaths for everyday that we continue this pointless war.
In short, America “fell for it.” U.S. political and military leaders exploited the September 11th attacks to get away with pursuing unrelated agendas, ultimately to the point of imperial over-extension and the detriment of American power, just as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri were hoping and betting they would. By granting these leaders the writ to “keep us safe” at any cost in this new, fearful age, the people of this country have instead placed themselves in much greater danger. Our government helped create this international terrorist movement that they then provoked into turning against the American people. Then they exploited the blowback terrorist attacks, using them as an excuse to spread the war to countries that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or their war against America. In playing the role of the rampaging empire, America’s leaders have not only created the space for the spread of bin Ladenite fighters across the Middle East, but have allowed some of these most savage and formerly marginal groups of criminals and terrorists on earth to portray themselves as brave heroes who saw the danger first and would dare to stand up to such overwhelming military power. In doing so, America’s leaders have helped to add tens of thousands of combatants to the enemy’s ranks and guarantee blowback and backdraft against the U.S. and its allies into the indefinite future, all the while using terrorism as an excuse for further erosions of our freedoms. And they did it all in the name of keeping us safe.21
As I write this in the aftermath of the seventeenth anniversary of 9/11, I count my blessings that I am here to write this article. To be sure, this is no patriotic orgy of thanking the military and bowing to the U.S. government security apparatus that is, in theory, hard at work keeping me safe while I sleep at night. No, this is a cautionary tale of the dangers of placing your trust in government, the disruptive impacts of unbridled imperialistic warmongering and the perils of nationalistic fervor as told through the history and experiences of the Volga Germans in the mid 1800’s.
Imagine being presented with an opportunity to move to a new land, ostensibly provided at no cost and with travel expenses to be paid by an outside entity. Imagine, in an era of inevitable conscription and assured death, an opportunity to be exempted from military service. Imagine an assurance of freedom of religion, a guarantee to be able to maintain common practices and a thirty-year exemption from taxes. Even by today’s standards, this is a very enlightened and generous offer. In 1763, at the end of the Seven Years’ War, this very offer was given by Catherine the Great to many people throughout Europe (Catherine’s Second Manifesto). Although many were given the offer, the focus was to the German people and many did come to settle on the lower Volga River basin, about 450 miles Southeast of Moscow. My ancestors were among the people who took this offer, an offer they would ultimately regret and one that would have dire consequences.
Having grown weary of the fighting and tax burden associated with the Seven Years’ War, it was appealing for many Germans to take the offer and start life anew. In 1766, many began the year long journey and began the process of establishing or expanding agricultural settlements in numerous locations throughout the lower Volga River basin. In the beginning, relations among the Russians and the settlers were generally decent and there was relative stability in an area that was somewhat isolated from Imperial Russian control. Indeed, achieving stability in an area prone to roving bandits was a primary, albeit quietly stated, goal for the Russian Empire. Eventually, tensions began to mount between the German settlers and their Russian neighbors on account of the initial German farming successes and the special privileges that they had been granted. Throughout the 1800’s, many ethnic Germans continued to see economic successes in a number of industrial trades and many had become large landowners. Anti-German sentiment would begin to worsen with the rise of Russian nationalism in the late 19th century, a time which, as described by the Norka-Russia website, “the Slavophile movement in Russia cast all ethnic Germans as their mortal enemy and the Volga Germans as a serious threat to the security of the empire. The Slavophile press consistently scapegoated the Volga Germans and other German communities in the Russian Empire.” It was inevitable that a scapegoat was created and it is one of the primary tools of class warfare: pit one faction against another, keep the masses distracted and consolidate power in the process. Indeed, some things never change.
Alas, as go so many government promises, the guarantees from Catherine’s Manifesto began to be stripped away with the stroke of a pen. In the 1870’s Tsar Alexander II issued imperial decrees that instituted compulsory military conscription for the Volga Germans and revoked the right of self-government. Many were sent to war, never to return. Imperialist states always need warm bodies for cannon fodder. In response to these decrees, many Volga Germans began to emigrate to the United States, Canada, Brazil and Argentina, beginning in 1875. Despite the loss of privileges, many Germans did choose to remain and would continue to see economic successes as Russia began to industrialize in the latter part of the 19th century. But, those who did stay would come to know the era of lost privileges to be the proverbial canary in the coal mine of future turbulent times. After 1881, Russian language education became compulsory and anti-German sentiment would swell once again with the rise of the newly unified and increasingly powerful German nation state under Kaiser Wilhelm II.
It’s important to pause and reflect on the latter part of the 19th Century with regards to geo-politics and war. There were long simmering tensions beginning to boil over between Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire (among others) due to each empire’s imperialist ambitions. In the late 1890’s there was the internal explosion on the USS Maine and the jingoistic yellow journalism that prompted the beginning of the Spanish-American war and ostensibly, the beginning of the American Empire. Circling back to Russia, there was the Russo-Japanese War from 1904-1905, which grew out of rival imperial ambitions of the Russian Empire and the Empire of Japan over Manchuria and Korea. This failed war with Japan was largely viewed as indicative of the failure of the Russian Empire writ large and contributed to the turbulent era of revolution in Russia, ultimately leading to the execution of Tsar Nicholas II. Finally, the outbreak of WW1 in 1914 wrought upon the world an era of warfare and destruction, the ripples of which can still be felt to this day.
If you were a Volga German during the seventy-year span from 1850-1920, there was a decision to be made: do leave the land that you and your ancestors had come to know as home for the last 150 years? What would it take for you to throw it all away and start over again? Consider that many became sugar beet farmers in a foreign land with a foreign language on the dusty plains of Nebraska and Colorado. Also, consider this quote from Russian General Polivanov, on order of Grand Duke Nicholas: “Russia’s Germans must all be driven out, without respect of age, sex, any supposed usefulness, or their many years of residence in the empire.” The writing was on the wall, but do you have the resources and connections required to venture to a new land halfway around the world?
War presents unparalleled opportunities for government to execute any number of nefarious plans, as evidenced by Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov who, again from the Norka-Russia website, “called for a “final solution” to the ethnic German problem in Russia, noting that the time had come…to deal with this long over-due problem, for the current war [WWI] has created the conditions to make it possible to solve this problem once and for all.” For those able to escape, this seems a fitting place to wrap this up with a happy ending. Unfortunately, there is none, for the Volga Germans were caught up in a nationalistic nightmare with hatred surrounding them on all sides. Nationalistic fervor had taken over and many Russians despised the ethnic Germans: the choice was to flee or face conscription and later, deportation. Alternately, one could flee to Germany and get caught up in the rise of newly unified Germany with assured conscription and fight against Russia. Some fled to the United States, only to find themselves facing intense resentment for being German and got caught up in the Teddy Roosevelt nationalistic fervor. The only way to prove loyalty and avoid persecution was to join up and go back and fight in Europe. The insanity was overwhelming.
All this was in the span of a lifetime for some and it only brings us to the WWI era. For those unable to leave, the nightmare was only beginning. WWI increased and propelled anti-German sentiment to unimaginable levels and from 1915 to 1916 approximately 200,000 ethnic Germans were deported to Siberia, all under the guise of outing spies, saboteurs, and well, just being German. The massive deportations continued in the aftermath of WWI and the magnitude is staggering. I began this article stating that I am lucky to be here writing this and here’s why: only about 25 percent of Volga Germans were able to escape and immigrate to the United States and other locations between 1875 and 1920. After the 1920, the Iron Curtain descended and the fates of the Volga Germans were all but sealed, as the Communists in the Soviet Union eliminated any possibility of leaving the country. President Wilson claimed to make the world safe for democracy, but what came of it? From the massive death tolls of WWI came the rise of communism and fascism throughout a large portion of Europe and another world war. So, what is trust when it comes to war and government? The only trust is government trusting that the populace will go along with every lie told and will march right off and commit any atrocity, under any pretense, for love of country and all that empty, nationalistic rhetoric.
The story of the Volga Germans is why I am anti-war. Government lies and nationalistic propaganda sent my ancestors and many others to certain death in the Siberian tundra. This was only made possible via the people enabling a massive nation state to exist. The trust placed in government to divvy up the spoils of taxes leads to inevitable division, hatred and plunder. The sheer magnitude of death destruction and lost opportunity from the 20th century way of war is unfathomable. The Volga Germans were lied to, but their story is not unique. There will always be another government cabal eager to fill the void and mislead the masses to assured death and destruction. We would be wise to stay vigilant and question everything. The only one really looking out for you, is you.
Short Bio: Nick lives in Denver, CO and writes a monthly article on www.denverlibertarian.com covering history, war and politics through the lens of libertarianism. The website includes a collection articles on events past and present: local, national and beyond, to challenge the mainstream narrative with meaningful, thought provoking analysis. The goal is to present, in a manner easily understood, how Austrian economics and libertarian philosophical concepts can apply to the local and voluntary experiences that occur everyday.
US News The FBI says it is looking at one person who sprayed an irritant into the face of Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick before he died the next day. The FBI is investigating the incident as an assault. [Link] Minneapolis city council approved $1.18 million in...
From March to June 2017 I was the Team Turkey Commander, having replaced what, until that point, had been a Special Forces Company mission with a company headquarters, three Special Forces teams, and some addition support personal. Once the company moved to Syria, it...
The Roots of the War on Terror - Tom Woods The Iraq Fiasco Revisited - Tom Woods Backgrounder on Syria, and Why the US Should Stay Out - Tom Woods War All the Time: The Perpetual War on Terror - Tom Woods The Truth About the Iran Nuclear Program - Tom Woods Further...
On Monday, Chairman Dan McKnight of BringOurTroopsHome.US traveled to Pierre, South Dakota to testify in front of the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee in favor of the "Defend the Guard" bill introduced by State Rep. Aaron Aylward (R-Harrisburg). This...
Scott talks to Ryan McMaken about nuclear proliferation. McMaken describes two lessons that other countries have learned from the U.S. about nukes: (1) America will use the threat of an emerging nuclear program as an excuse for invasion, as it did in Iraq and...
Eli Clifton discusses the Biden Administration's Afghanistan study group, a panel of national security experts and former officers giving recommendations on whether the U.S. should get out of Afghanistan on the Trump administration's withdrawal timeline. Some of these...
Ray McGovern talks with Scott about the lies and malfeasance of the national security state during the "Russiagate" fiasco. McGovern begins by rehashing the FBI's lies that first led to a FISA warrant on Carter Page, who they failed to disclose to the court was...
Scott interviews Gareth Porter about his coverage of the recent and widespread claims of a Chinese genocide of the Uyghurs. Many of these accusations have relied on the work of one man, Adrian Zenz, whose research Porter calls into question. Porter wrote a piece with...
54 Minutes Some Strong Language Doc is a friend of Pete's from Twitter who comes on the show to talk about a couple subjects. First, he talks about his time working for The Humane Society undercover at farms and facilities where he was supposed to get secret video...
57 Minutes PG-13 Karen Keener is the proprietor of TheSovereignMom.com and one of Pete's closest confidants. Karen joins Pete to share her thoughts about why Americans appear to no longer have a line when it comes to growing tyranny. TheSovereignMom.com Karen on...
55 Minutes Suitable for All Ages Independent journalist Jeremy R. Hammond returns to the show and starts by talking about his background and how he got into investigative journalism. He then discusses what he sees as the effects of the insane money printing over the...
58 Minutes Some Strong Language Clint is the host of the Liberty Lockdown Podcast and a former private money mortgage broker. Clint joins Pete to explain why the government's actions in the last 12 months is setting up a housing/real estate crisis that will be...
On COI #77, Kyle and Will analyze the US bombing raid on Syria and what it will mean for the Biden administration's efforts to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal. The strikes were deemed a response to recent rocket attacks on US forces in Iraq by militia groups that...
On COI #76, Patrick McFarlane – host of Liberty Weekly – returns to the show. Kyle and Pat discuss how members of the independent media, including libertarians, are pushing anti-China propaganda. A recent report used birth data to push the claim that the Chinese...
On COI #75, Connor Freeman - writer at The Libertarian Institute - returns to the show to discuss the Israeli vaccination program. The program has received wide-spread praise from the US media and even Dr. Fauci. While Israel is vaccinating a lot of people, the...
On COI #74, Kyle and Will go over recent comments from the Biden administration signaling it's ready to sit down with Iran and European powers to discuss coming back into the 2015 nuclear deal. But with US officials hinting that other "regional issues" could be...
https://youtu.be/Z4IC8Xu1328 Arguing for a government monopoly on security is akin to arguing that the New York Times should be the only newspaper, by law. - Michael Malice Sal the Agorist: https://www.saltheagorist.com/ Pete Quinones:...
https://youtu.be/-KOo8zS8nhI War, then, even a just defensive war, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals themselves. Murray N. Rothbard Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 190 The market is an...
https://youtu.be/v2QaSLcGms4 ...just as the right of nullification for a state logically implies its right of secession, so a right of individual nullification would imply the right of any individual to “secede” from the State under which he lives. Murray N....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V-1s8PolDI Libertarian content creator Drew Hancock joins me to discuss his YouTube channel and his viral video, "The Problem with Blue-Pilled Libertarians." We discuss our liberty journeys and how Drew ended up following in his dad's...
https://youtu.be/WCiXZGtT3RU With respect to Tim Pool and Luke Rudkowski, I caution their uncritical acceptance of Chinese genocide against the Uyghur Muslims and their proliferation of atrocity propaganda. Although Tim Pool and Luke Rudkowski are antiwar, their...
https://youtu.be/hKHZH3W5KOA Dutch libertarian, law student, and longtime friend and supporter of the show, Thijs van der Linde joins me to discuss the recent anti-lockdown protests and rioting in the Netherlands. We also discuss his undergraduate law school thesis...
https://youtu.be/BCg98f1pypY Michael Boldin, director of the Tenth Amendment Center and the host of the Path to Liberty Podcast joined me to discuss methods the Founding Fathers prescribed for combating both poor constitutional and blatantly unconstitutional policy....
Coop joins Tommy to continue the series on Philosophy versus Ideology. In this episode they go over how conceptualism forces the believers in the concepts to operate as if in a cult. Donate https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/strangerencounterspodcast/coop2.mp3
Car from Timeline Earth joined Tommy to discuss Bitcoin and the future of separation of currency and state. After Elon Musk and Tesla announced they will be accepting Bitcoin for purchases the price skyrocketed. Is this the peak? or just the beginning?...
Tommy invited Pete to discuss his strategies moving forward in combatting the propaganda and demonization coming from the cathedral since Trump losing the election. Free Man Beyond The Wall Pete's Substack The Monopoly On Violence...
Tommy invited Scott on to discuss the policies of the Biden administration in regards to Iran and the rumors surrounding Iran's nuclear capabilities and ambitions. Buy Enough Already Donate https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/strangerencounterspodcast/scott_iran.mp3...