cj#569> re: U.S. Hegemony & the Presidency


Richard Moore

Dear cj,

        Below, Frank Chartrand continues his rebuttal re/U.S. Hegemony.  He
argues that Clinton is to be blamed for an alleged deterioriation in the
U.S. military situation.  I disagree with his characterization, as you'll
see at the end, but there's another issue I'd like to raise.

        I find the style of this material somehow disturbing.  It looks
like what you would get if you assigned some professor to write a piece to
achieve a certain propaganda objective, namely to show:
        (1) Clinton is weak and we need a Republican.
        (2) The U.S. is getting pushed around, and needs to assert itself.
        (3) We need a larger military budget.

        What we see are skillfully documented vignettes that seem to prove
certain conclusions, and then a chain of interpretation that seeks to
establish more general principles.  That's fair enough, but there's also a
very deft framing of issues, limiting of alternatives, and information
selectivity that makes the whole presentation seem bogus.  There's more
than a whiff of sophistry.

        It is a fact, not a conspiracy theory, that one of the largest
groups of people to receive regular CIA payments are professors.  Selected
academics are funded to write internal documents (confidential studies,
analyses, position papers, etc.) and propaganda documents (OpEd pieces,
papers for journals, newspaper columns, etc.) which argue in requested
directions, using as much professorial flair and fact-waving as possible.

        You might describe the CIA as a planter-gatherer society, with
respect to information.  It plants stories, and it gathers information.
This is a natural progression in the evolution of an intelligence agency.

        It starts by gathering, and soon learns how information controls
public opinion and government policy.  The natural next step is to try to
influence the generation of information at its source, toward whatever
political goals the intelligence establishment might have.

        With the advent of Internet, one wonders how many of these
professorial operatives were retargeted to ply their planting/gathering via
modem?  And to what extent they help maintain the divisiveness and
unproductivity of so many Internet endeavors?  This isn't a question of
"whether", but of "to what extent".

        I don't know anything about Frank, and I'm making no suggestions
about his particular motives, sincerity, or backing.  It's simply the case
that his style of argument happened to spark an issue in my mind that I'd
been wanting to mention anyway.


Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996
Sender: Frank Chartrand <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#562> re: U.S. Hegemony

8/18/96, rkm wrote:
>Dear Frank,
>        Yes, once nukes become an "acceptable" weapon, there are many
>global situations where that option, under certains circumstances, might be
>seriously considered.  I don't see any relevance to "the last 3 years",
>unless you're one of those trying to pin on Clinton the crimes of the past
>several decades.

Well, if one looks at the weeks leading up to the 1992 election and comments
made even up until January 1993 - it was critical according to Bill Clinton
and Warren Christopher that N Korea not be allowed to have nuclear material.
All efforts would be expended according to Clinton - to stop N Korea from
achieiving that power.  And then in the following 2-3 years N Korea has the
power.  I do blame it on Clinton and it is quite easy to do so.  Wasn't
before ... he said he wouldn't allow it ... and now they do.  Very simple.

The same goes for Iran.  Before - no.  Now ... quite possibly.  Considering
the Russian Security Police arrested 11 people in 1995 for selling /
attempting to sell nuclear material to various countries.  2 of these were:
N Korea and Iran.  So again I blame him and that is, again quite easy to do.
Wasn't before ... now it is.

According to NERC - Nuclear Emergency Response Commission - in 1990 the
chance of someone detonating a nuclear device in the US was 1-3%.  In 1993
it was 15-17%.  In 1996 it is 24-29%.  According to them it is a matter of
'when' not 'if'.  Again it seems clear from before and after that it falls
on Clinton.  if not on Clinton then on Christopher.  He made 13 visits to N
Korea.  Underlings made 23 visits between 1992-1995.  In all the visits ...
36 odd times ... N Korea now has the capability.  It is quite clear that the
efforts taken result in nothing but babbling.

You mention Bosnia: We are in Bosnia and are confined in Bosnia to camps.
Have been since arriving. Fear soldiers might be killed and lose an
election.  Ordered to remain on bases and to never venture outisde without
full support and only with visibility of base.  According to the commander
of a base visited by a journalist 3-4 months ago.

>        The U.S. has field-tested its
>cruise/stealth/satellite/laser/fuel-air weapons systems, and is managing to
>get increasing blank-check authorization to use them in global "trouble
>spots".  Militarily decisive, semi-permanent U.S. forces are stationed in
>both Bosnia and Iraq, with no clear limits on what actions those forces
>might take.

The amounts spent for defense have progressively declined.  If one looks at
Clintons budget amounts ... until 2000 - the amounts continue to decline.
According to the pentagon the status of forces is declining and the ability
to maintain present conditions will decline if amounts are decreased
further.  We could have 100 million men stationed around the world but if
their orders are to hide - it doesn't matter.

>        The world has all but officially designated the U.S. as the
>official global police force, with NATO or the UN pulled in when
>convenient.  The 100,000 plus Iraqis who died under U.S. bombardment would
>not consider this tiger to be paper.  Nor do the Chinese, who considered
>the U.S. cruise-by's to be substantially provocative, not just empty

While I do not like the idea ... we are the only one who can.  Chinese
threatened invasion of taiwan if they voted for independence so ...
provocation depends on who is looking at what side of the story.We didn't
start the cruises ... we merely kept it going after the Chinese started rumbles.

Interesting nonetheless.  : )

Thanks for your response.



Dear Frank,

        First of all, I don't see any evidence that Clinton should be
credited with having a foreign policy at all.  It seems to me that the job
of U.S. President has degenerated to the point of being a figurehead
position.  Just like in the declining days of the Roman Empire, when the
Emperor's crown was auctioned off by the army to the highest bidder.  The
actual job of the chief executive is to act as chief PR spokesman for the
establishment, and to take the wrap (or credit) for how things turn out.

        The president, as candidate, is selected by the elite, is captive
to the party machinery and the media, and must conform to their collective
requirements.  When in office, he's captive to his establishment-connected
advisors and National Security Council, who are for the most part, as they
say, non-partisan.  Any president who tries to excercise leadership against
the wishes of the ongoing establishment finds himself downriver without a
paddle very quickly.

        Athough he's more awake and articulate, I don't credit Clinton with
any more grasp of anything than I did Reagan, who everyone recognized as
cue-card reading dimwit.  To attribute personal will to Clinton's stage
performance is to fall prey to what I call the "fascism ratchet".

        The "fascism ratchet" uses the bi-partisan system, in these days of
a dummy PR Presdency, to move the country ever-closer to outright fascism.
It works like this.  By and large, U.S. policy unfolds according to its
unnanounced, elite-established agenda.   But the timing, and the media
spin, of events is staged so that Republican Presidents always come out
heroes, and Democratic Presidents always come out looking like buffoons.

        In addition, certain moves are easier for a Democrat to make (such
as NAFTA), and others a Republican (such as opening relations with China).

        Clinton isn't really a liberal, and isn't doing anything effective
for genuine liberalism, but he's painted as a liberal so that his
sensationalized failings will discredit liberalism.  If Clinton's ahead in
the polls, that simply reflects that the overwhelming majority of Americans
are liberal-leaning, not that they particularly like Clinton.  Media &
investigative revelations re/ Clinton "corruption" will accelerate as
necessary to assure his defeat.  Dole will then declare a "mandate" for a
thorough-going anti-liberal stance, one more ratchet closer to fascism.


        re/Korea & Iran: I imagine these situtations will be dealt with in
the time frame and by the means considered appropriate by our bi-partisan
NSC.  But if anything heroic is called for, it'll await a Republican to
receive the credit.  Clinton will get the blame for the "proliferation
gap", as your piece demonstrates.

        re/proliferation:  the obvious bi-partisan U.S. policy for years
has been to proliferate as much weaponry as possible as widely as possible,
overtly and covertly, with only a few taboos.  This is only partly due to
the arms-sales profits (we're the world's largest weapons exporter).  More
strategically, it serves the purpose of keeping the world divided and in
turmoil (destabilized).  That gives the U.S. the chance to come in as
Peacemaker and Policeman, consolidating its hegemony, and implementing its
new world order.

         A Korea with nuclear weapons is a Korea the U.S. can justify an
attack on.  Same for Iran.

        re/Bosnia: Presidents of both parties are constrained to minimize
fatalaties to "our boys".  Nothing can bring breed doves faster than body
bags do.  Surely you must know the military role of the U.S. in Bosnia is
handling intelligence, launching cruise missles, and perhaps some hi-tech
bombing runs.  For troops we use the other NATO forces, or the Croats, who
we armed and helped train.  Why wouldn't we stay on base?  The imperial
legions are for strategic uses only.

>The amounts spent for defense have progressively declined.

        So?  The cuts are mostly in outmoded bases and personnel.  The
modern military is based on high-tech, high-profit weapons systems,
requiring minimal personnel.  And modern poltical/military tactics are
high-leverage -- using others' forces where possible, waiting for the right
moment, hitting with a focused karate attack.  The obscene, astronomical
U.S. military budget is more than adequate for the job.

>While I do not like the idea ... we are the only one who can.

        Are you agreeing then, that we are the world policeman?  Is this
somehow consistent with your arguments against hegemony?

        re/China: The issue was not whether China can be considered
provocative, the issue was whether or not the U.S. is a paper tiger wrt
China.  The timing of two recent U.S. cruises in that region were publicly
described by the Chinese themselves as being provocative and insulting --
and the behavior of the fleets (sending certain over-the-horizon radio
pings) was intentionally taunting.

        If the U.S. wants to let the Chinese have Taiwan, they could do
that.  But if they want to draw a line and tell China "No further, or
else", then Taiwan would be the perfect such line.  The strategic problem
would be to make sure the propaganda climate and military plan-of-attack
are in good order when the moment of truth comes.  A nuclear strike on
Libya is critical to assure the bugs are worked out of the "Nukes 'R Nice"
propaganda machinery.



    Posted by Richard K. Moore  -  •••@••.•••  -  Wexford, Ireland
     Cyberlib:  www | ftp --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib