Sunday, January 19, 2020

National-security state

"Egypt and the Destruction of Civil Liberties in America" (Hornberger):
"Like the United States since the end of World War II, Egypt is a national-security state. That means that, like the United States, its government is characterized by a powerful military-intelligence establishment with vast powers within the national governmental apparatus. The difference between the two systems is that while the U.S. government has three other branches of government — the executive, legislative, and judicial — the Egyptian national-security establishment wields 100 percent omnipotent control over the government and, consequently, the nation.

The U.S. Constitution called a different type of governmental structure into existence — a limited-government republic. The last thing that Americans of that time would have approved was a national-security state form of governmental structure similar to the one in Egypt or the United States today. That’s because they didn’t trust vast and powerful military-intelligence establishments, which they called “standing armies.” They figured that such establishments end up destroying the freedom and well-being of the citizenry.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, expressed the common sentiment of Americans, when he stated:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
"Pompeo Says Gangland-Style Hit on Soleimani Was "Restoration of Deterrence"" (Whitney).  "The Murder Of Qassem Soleimani Will Deter No One" (Moon).  After Trump and Pompeo worked their way through a series of lies intended to provide some sort of justification for the illegal murder of Soleimani (and Trump eventually throwing up his hands and giving up), Pompeo has settled on a doctrine, as seen in the excerpt from his speech (my emphasis in red; the reference to the Islamic Republic is ludicrous as the immediate result of this 'deterrence' - the killing of the world's most successful ISIS killer - is ceasing fighting ISIS):
"President Trump and those of us in his national security team are re-establishing deterrence – real deterrence ‒ against the Islamic Republic. In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits. It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so.
And let’s be honest. For decades, U.S. administrations of both political parties never did enough against Iran to get the deterrence that is necessary to keep us all safe.
So what did we do? We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military deterrence.
Qasem Soleimani discovered our resolve to defend American lives.
We have re-established deterrence, but we know it’s not everlasting, that risk remains. We are determined not to lose that deterrence. In all cases, we have to do this.
We saw, not just in Iran, but in other places, too, where American deterrence was weak. We watched Russia’s 2014 occupation of the Crimea and support for aggression against Ukraine because deterrence had been undermined. We have resumed lethal support to the Ukrainian military.

China’s island building, too, in the South China Sea, and its brazen attempts to coerce American allies undermined deterrence. The Trump administration has ramped up naval exercises in the South China Sea, alongside our allies and friends and partners throughout the region."
So the Trump/Pompeo Doctrine is that the American national security state, the actual government of the United States, can kill anybody it doesn't like, for no reason other than the vague idea that it will 'deter' anybody from doing something or anything else it doesn't like.

"Lunatic: Pompeo threatens Putin with Drone Assassination" (Duff). Pompeo expressly put Russia and China on his list.  It is difficult not to be reminded of the foaming at the mouth over the allegations against Russia involving Skripal.

Of course, and ironically, the reason the powers that be developed rules against this sort of thing is that it leads to profoundly asymmetrical results, with the weaker countries now able to take out a far bigger chunk of the hegemon's power by selective assassinations, a relatively resource sparing and easy technique of warfare available to those who lack the same quantity of military equipment.  The hegemon and its vassals are already scraping the bottom of the barrel in its search for 'leaders', and this will only make things worse.

"After US killing of Iran’s Soleimani, narrative control on social media is getting worse" (Bartlett).  After an Assassination For The Jews, the (((platforms))) naturally cleanse themselves of dangerous truth.  The essential problem with the (((platforms))), un(((mediated))) content which can be provided by anyone, is dealt with by disappearing content and content providers, and the infamous Khazar utter shamelessness - chutzpah, their main defining characteristic along with psychopathy and kleptomania - comes in handy here.

"How the President Became a Drone Operator" (Harpootlian).

"The Military and State Can't Handle the Trump Truth by Larry C Johnson" (Anglin).  This is great, as far as it goes, except Trump, under MEGA Group blackmail pressure, and the bribes, folded up like a cheap suitcase, and certainly can no longer be counted on for any opposition to the national-Security state, especially after the next election.
blog comments powered by Disqus