Jimmy Carter Is Right: America Is the World’s Biggest Warmonger

Jimmy Carter's depiction of the Amerikkan warmongers is correct.

Unlike a lot of pseudo-Democrats and paper (e.g. 'wine and brie')  liberals, I DO give lots of credit to former President Jimmy Carter – for at least being one of the few executives not to launch a war on his watch. That is something to be proud of, whether as a citizen or as another chief exec. But strangely enough, as comedian Bill Maher noted two weeks ago- few Dem candidates or actual presidents have given any acknowledgement to Carter for his accomplishments. They’d rather give them to an idiot like Reagan.

Now in a recent interview at salon.com Carter correctly provides his take on this country’s increasingly war mongering direction – since John Kennedy was slain in 1963.  Recall in his American University speech,  on June 10, 1963, JFK declared:


“Our primary long-range interest is general and complete disarmament- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.”

Doubtless, most of the eyes and ears of the then U.S. military establishment either disbelieved Kennedy’s words or thought he was simply playing to the audience of young, graduating Catholic idealists. However, barely four months later their cynical clocks were cleaned when Kennedy announced the agreement on the Nuclear Test ban treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.  As author James Douglass aptly notes[1]:

The test ban treaty was JFK’s critically important way to initiate, with Khrushchev, the end of the Cold War and their joint leadership in the United Nations for the redemptive process of general and complete disarmament

Why would JFK risk all to push for changes he had to know would make the militarist establishment nervous? Why would JFK risk being branded a traitor or “appeaser” – the word used by Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer  - when he adamantly refused to go all out and bomb, invade Cuba in the midst of the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis? Probably because in that crisis Kennedy saw how very close human civilization came to incineration.

Jimmy Carter was much the same as forces within his own administration pushed him to reckless action in the wake of the taking of the American hostages in Iran, in 1979. But he resisted their siren call, and ended up losing the 1980 election because Reagan and pals conspired with the Iranians such that if they held up release of the hostages until after the election, they’d subsequently benefit from a huge arms deal. This later became the center point of the Iran Contra Conspiracy.  The basic nutshell version is that Reagan & Co. facilitated the shipping of  Israeli Hawk and TOW missiles to Iran to obtain the release of the American hostages.  The money from the sale of these arms was then funneled into Nicaragua to support the Rightist “Contras’, a violation of the then Boland Amendment.

In his salon.com interview Carter was queried about John Kerry’s response on ‘Meet the Press’ when he actually said (before the Russian occupation of Crimea):  “This is the 21^st century …you can’t just invade another country anymore.”

Carter’s response:

"Right. We did. We do it all the time. That’s Washington. Unfortunately. And we have for years"

When asked about the American exceptionalist bunkum and the “duty to bring democracy to the rest of the world” – and whether we in fact see ourselves accurately – and how that squares with how the rest of the world see us, Carter was blunt:

“The rest of the world, almost unanimously, looks at America as the No. 1 warmonger. That we revert to armed conflict almost at the drop of a hat — and quite often it’s not only desired by the leaders of our country, but it’s also supported by the people of America. We’ve also reverted back to a terrible degree of punishment of our people rather than the reinstitution of them back into life. And this means that we have 7.5 times as many people now in prison as when I left the governor’s mansion. We’re the only country that has the death penalty in NATO; we’re the only country in this hemisphere that has the death penalty, and this is another blight on our country as far as unwarranted, unnecessary and counterproductive violence are concerned.”

 

In other words, we’re a belligerent, mean-spirited lot that is often unthinking – and because we are- often provoked to either elect barbarians and warmongers (aka neocons, or neocon -lovers), or become passive so the other side is energized to do so while we stay home or vote ‘lesser of two evils.  We’re also a highly vengeful people, who manufacture laws that reflect this – accounting for why we have so many behind bars. We talk about “second chances”, but are merciless except to bankers and Wall Street criminals who get away with barely a slap on the wrist or less, as portrayed in ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’

My biggest complaint, and I suspect Carter’s too, is that we are historically ignorant and under-educated, which is why we allow the perpetuation of a war-security state without making any headway.  We are played, or rather our fears are, to allow this war-security state to continue to garner power in our name and to do things we should all uniformly deplore – but don’t.

But how can we improve when our own elected leaders are even prepared to turn a blind eye to the miscreants, such as the ones in the CIA who conducted tortures and renditions in our name. We are told by these leaders to “look ahead, not backward” and yet the same leaders were prepared to throw the book at any and all whistle blowers – including Bradley Manning.

Incredibly, even as Jimmy Carter’s interview came online, a despicable essay “Why I Am Still a Neocon” is making the rounds.  This insane piece of offal actually proclaims the need to retain Amerikkan Military dominance in the world, despite the fact that is only guaranteed to earn us more enemies and ever more chances to see that power exposed and foiled for the paper tiger it is – especially when going up against a power of equal might. That the United States cannot maintain its status as unipolar power forever should be obvious to anyone who has studied history and anyone with a newspaper subscription. The rapidly developing economies and massive populations of countries like China and India make that plain enough, as does Russia’s newly retooled, modernized military and its retention of a "de-escalation" doctrine that allows it to employ nukes if its conventional forces are ever overwhelmed (say by NATO).

This is why the neocon mentality is like a dinosaur.  It is already  passé  and can’t be sustained – no matter how many neocon moles at the State Dept. desire it, or how many of their stupid essays demand it.  Sheesh, I mean  the author of the piece (Reihan Salam) even acknowledges that the military spending of the United States is insane, but waves that concern away by arguing that we’ll contain costs by lowering our personnel costs, which are “half of our military budget. “  It’s the personnel that are expendable!

In other words, this moron has actually pronounced the worst idea  for neo-conservatism- in fact, its total demise. Because while the warmongering mentality in neo-conservatism demands the hyperbolic valorization of the soldiers whom we send away to be killed- Salam is asserting we can convince the country to pay soldiers less though they will necessarily be killed more often.

Does he think  youthful volunteers are that stupid, that they will still sign up – presumably under the pseudo-Patriot banner-   under those conditions? And also with likely  benefits cuts?

In the end, left unsaid, is that any volunteer would be mad or delusional to fight for a nation in a major confrontation (with a major power) that is already at a vast disadvantage  in manpower. Hell, the Chinese already  enjoy a billion-person advantage over the U.S.. Start a ground war with them, and you think even one million volunteer ‘Muricans will stand a change against 25  million inducted Chinese? Give me a break. And don’t even think of talking nukes, you don’t want to go there.

The bottom line is that Jimmy Carter is correct, and our warmongering ways provide no insurance for the future – for ourselves or our vaunted “democracy”.  There is simply no way we can sustain the unipolar power hegemony indefinitely. We are already paying the price in massive decline at home, most visibly in our crumbling infrastructure and eroding middle class. It’s time now to put on the realist hat and stop playing the fanciful global "cop".  Instead,  we need to take care of our own and ensure our REAL domestic security.

As for the neocons, their hand is played out, they just don’t know it yet.

See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/55305/rumsfeld-personifies-our-society

and:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/55303/as-for-ukraine-is-anyone-playing-this-crisis-straight

---

[1] James Douglass: 2008, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Orbis Books, p. 329.

‘ARGO’, Iran –Contra and What Bob Schieffer Needs To Ask Romney Tonight

Seeing the excellent movie ‘ARGO’ (produced by George Clooney & Ben Affleck) brought back the tense period (over 1979-80) of the 52 American hostages, held 444 days by Shi’ite zealots at the U.S. Embassy in Iran. It also brought back memories of what led to that dire standoff, and what nasty deals followed in its wake.


Rather than delve into the movie, which I won’t do because I think many more people need to see this superb film, let me offer some perspectives on the Iran –Contra conspiracy which was implemented by Reagan cronies such as Oliver North, John Poindexter, Albert Hakim and Caspar Weinberger. All the charges against these characters and others are listed on page xiv of the Introduction to the Iran –Contra Report (1994) published by Random House at the behest of Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh. (Note: Weinberger – “charged with four counts of false statements and perjury was pardoned by George Bush” That would be George Senior).


The basic facts to take away concerning the conspiracy were these

- Shipping Israeli Hawk and TOW missiles to Iran from 1985-86 to obtain the release of American hostages held in the Middle East. This was despite an embargo on such sales.

- The money from the sales of these arms was to be funneled into Nicaragua to support the Rightist “Contras’, a violation of the then Boland Amendment, and basically exposing the Reagan administration’s covert support for paramilitary activities conducted against the Sandinista government.


As noted in Walsh’s Introduction (p. xv):

“The Iran and Contra operations were merged when funds generated from the sale of weapons to Iran were diverted to support the Contra mission in Nicaragua.  Although this diversion may be the most dramatic aspect of Iran-contra, it is important to emphasize that both the Iran and contra operations, separately, violated United States policy and the law.”


Violation of policy was via the Boland Amendment. Named for Rep. Edward Boland (D-MA) The amendment restricted U.S. aid to the contras and “prohibited the use of U.S. funds for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua.”

But even Rep. Boland likely couldn’t conceive of the dastardly lengths to which the Reaganites would go even before his amendment was in the public domain. I am referring, of course, to the “October Surprise” whereby Reaganites (known at the time also to be strongly supported by the Republican Heritage Council with Nazi links- see, e.g. Russ Bellant’s book: ‘Old Nazis, The New Right and the Republican Party’, 1991, pp. 41-44)) used back channels to make a secret deal with Iran to postpone release of the 52 American hostages in return for arms sales after the election.


Corroborating this, on July 18, 1981 the then USSR's TASS news agency reported the emergency landing near the USSR-Turkish border of an Argentine-registered transport aircraft leased and flown by Israelis, carrying a full load of US weaponry and military spare parts. The US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, Nicholas Veliotes, subsequently investigated this occurrence and concluded that the downed aircraft was on its third such flight in a series of shipments of US weapons to Iran which had been authorized by high officials in the Reagan Administration


The claims to the effect of a Reagan “October Surprise” were also made by former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr, former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick; and former Reagan/Bush campaign and White House staffer Barbara Honegger—and all have stood by the allegation despite efforts to naysay their credibility or the facts.


There have been connected allegations that the plane crash that killed the Portuguese Prime Minister, Francisco de Sá Carneiro, in 1980 was in fact an assassination of the Defence Minister, Adelino Amaro da Costa, who had said that he had documents concerning the October surprise conspiracy theory and was planning on taking them to the United Nations General Assembly.


Before people start talking “tinfoil hats” let’s examine what was at stake and in particular the federal conspiracy law as it would relate to the later arms-for-hostages dealings of Iran-Contra. As noted on p. 56 of The Iran –Contra Report:


“The federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371, states that ‘it is a crime to conspire to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose’”

This would have been violated under three criminal actions by the perpetators (ibid.):

1) “Using government resources, the conspirators conducted an unauthorized covert program in support of the contras.”

2) “North and Poindexter used their Government positions to create a hidden slush fund under the exclusive control of the conspirators”

3) “By secretly pursuing their own ends, the conspirators outraged the Iranians they were attempting to persuade and thus jeopardized the success of the Iran initiative.”


In terms of the scale and scope of the deal, on p. 338 of the Iran-Contra Report we see “3300 TOWs for hostages”, then on p. 339, we note: “In fact, 1,000 TOW missiles had been delivered to Iran between February 15 and 17, 1986.”


These facts are germane and important because they disclose that if such back doors channels were available over 1985-86 they also likely were available 5 years earlier to secure the October Surprise deal and Reagan’s election. Imagine then, before you scowl in disbelief, what likely would have unfolded before the 1980 election had those hostages been released then- as opposed to exactly TWENTY minutes after Reagan was inaugurated!


Past is Prologue, dear readers, and in terms of the Repuke betrayal of our nation and violation of its security and international dealings, they have shown themselves to be willing to do so again and again. Thus, Reagan’s October Surprise to secure for himself the election – which turned this nation into a debtor – and then five years later using arms sold to the Iranians to jeopardize security again even as he destabilized Nicaragua via the use of the contras. Then again on Sept. 12, 13 as Romney tried to use the Benghazi incident for political gain. (And which I believe he likely will try to do tonight, unless Schieffer puts the hammer down.)


And then today, we beheld Chief House Whore Darryl Issa releasing a document “dump” to try to embarrass Obama at tonight’s debate - but which has had the unintended effect of compromising our relations with Libya, as well as Turkey and other nations in the Middle East.

Anyway, the question (actually 2) Bob Schieffer needs to ask Romney tonight is:

“Where are you going to get $2 TRILLION to add to the Pentagon budget without massively adding to the deficit? And how do you intend to use it?”