Hopes and Prospects: on Homeland Security
Barack Obama:
OpEd: On track to spend most on military since WWII
For 2008, the US accounted for over 40% of global military expenses, eight times as much as its nearest rival, China. The US is of course alone in having a vast network of military bases around the world and a global surveillance and control system, and
in regularly invading other countries (with impunity, given its power). From 1999 to 2008, global military spending increased 45%, with the US accounting for 58% of the total.Obama is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other
president in one term of office since World War II, and that's not counting the additional $130 billion the administration is requesting to find the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, with even more war spending slated for future years. In January
2010, Congress passed his Pentagon budget with supplemental funding for Afghanistan pending. The $708.3 billion budget (with another $33 billion expected for Afghanistan) is not only a record, but also amounts to half the deficit.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 63-64
Jun 1, 2010
Barack Obama:
Called for space weapons ban, but with wiggle room
A crucial question is what Obama's position will be on "missile defense"--understood on all sides to be, in effect, a first-strike weapon--and militarization of space. On the latter, he was called for "a world-wide ban on weapons that interfere with
military and commercial satellites," which would mean that the US project of the weaponization of space--so far in isolation and over global objections, spearheaded at the UN by China--would remain undisturbed, while there would be a ban on any
interference with satellites, including those essential for the militarization of space. He also called for a space weapons ban, a very welcome step, but presented in a way that leaves "a lot of wiggle room." Obama's approach may be an improvement ove
Bush, and offers prospects for popular movements that seek to rid the earth of these threats to survival of the species. But a lot of work will be needed.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 65-66
Jun 1, 2010
Barack Obama:
Strengthen NPT to have automatic sanctions on Iran
[On Iran, Obama called for tough diplomacy "to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior," namely pursuing a nuclear program and supporting terrorism. If Iran abandons its troubling behavior, the
US might move toward normal diplomatic and economic relations, Obama proposed, but "if Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation."Furthermore, Obama proceeded, he will strengthen the
NPT "so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions." He made no mention of the conclusion of US intelligence that Iran had not had a weapons program for five years, unlike
US allies in Israel, Pakistan, and India, the three countries that all maintain extensive nuclear weapons programs (with direct US support), all unmentioned as well.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.249
Jun 1, 2010
Bill Clinton:
Clinton Doctrine: unilateral force for access to resources
Consider the first scholarly work on the roots of George W. Bush's preventive war doctrine, issued in September 2002 by the distinguished Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis. The core principle of the Bush doctrine is that "expansion, we have assumed, is th
path to security." Gaddis traces this doctrine to the "lofty, idealistic tradition of John Quincy Adams and Woodrow Wilson."The Clinton doctrine, presented to Congress, was that the United States is entitled to resort to "unilateral use of military
power" to ensure "uninhabited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources." Clinton too was echoing a familiar theme. In the early post-World War II years, the influential planner George Kennan explained that in Latin
America "the protection of our raw materials" must be a major concern--"our raw materials," which happen by accident to be somewhere else.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 23-24
Jun 1, 2010
Eric Holder:
No Geneva Convention for terrorist interrogations
It was hoped that Obama would reverse some of the more flagrant abuses of the Bush administration in dismantling the legal system, Eric Holder had a good reputation in the legal profession. However, he had explained on CNN that we cannot adhere to the
Geneva Conventions in interrogation of those accused of terrorism--which seems to mean that torture of suspects is legitimate, in gross violation of the foundations of international humanitarian law, by which the US is theoretically bound.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.225
Jun 1, 2010
George W. Bush:
Preventive War doctrine seen as path to security
Consider the first scholarly work on the roots of George W. Bush's preventive war doctrine, issued in September 2002 in preparation for the invasion of Iraq--which was then already under way, [despite Bush] pretending to be seeking a diplomatic
settlement. The study was written by the distinguished Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis, and has been much admired in the general and scholarly literature. The core principle of the Bush doctrine, as Gaddis writes approvingly, is that "expansion,
we have assumed, is the path to security, "Gaddis traces this doctrine to the "lofty, idealistic tradition of John Quincy Adams and Woodrow Wilson."
The Clinton doctrine, presented to Congress, was that the United States is entitled to resort to "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhabited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources."
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 23-24
Jun 1, 2010
George W. Bush:
9/11 Commission said secure north border; Bush secured south
The Bush administration permitted the formation of a high-level commission to investigate ways to improve security after 9/11. The commission recommendations were mostly ignored. For example, the commission recognized the importance of securing borders,
particularly the long and easily penetrated Canadian border. The Bush administration responded by shifting agents to the Mexican border, which was not a concern of the 9/11 commission, but is important to prevent a flood of immigrants.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 28
Jun 1, 2010
George W. Bush:
OpEd: Putin considered missile defense a threat to Russia
There is now justified concern about Russian reactions to US aggressive militarism. That includes the extension of NATO to the East by Clinton in violation of pledges to
Mikhail Gorbachev, but particularly the vast expansion of offensive military capacity under Bush, and more recently, the plans to place "missile defense" installations in Eastern Europe. Putin is ridiculed for claiming that they are a threat to Russia.
But US strategic analysts recognize that he has a point. The programs, they argue, are designed in a way that Russian planners would have to regard as a threat to the
Russian deterrent, hence calling for more advanced and lethal offensive military capacity to neutralize them. A new arms race is feared.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.136-137
Jun 1, 2010
George W. Bush:
Why do they hate us? OpEd: we oppose Arab nationalism
Bush was probably genuinely puzzled when he asked, "Why do they hate us?" and his response that "they hate our freedom" may reflect what he learned at school. But the historical record provides more compelling answers. More than half a century before
Bush's plaintive query, Pres. Eisenhower expressed his concern about "the campaign of hatred against us" in the Arab world, "not by the governments but by the people." The reasons for the "campaign of hatred" were outlined by the National Security
Council: "In the eyes of the majority of Arabs the US opposes the realization of the goals of Arab nationalism. They believe that the US is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic
progress." Furthermore, the perceptions are accurate: "Our economic interests in the area have led to close US relations with elements in the Arab world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance of the status quo," blocking democracy and development
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.192-193
Jun 1, 2010
Noam Chomsky:
US accounts for 40% of whole world's military expenditures
The immense city-within-a-city "embassy" in Baghdad not only remains, but its cost is also to rise under Obama to $1.8 billion a year, from an estimated $1.5 billion in Bush's last year. The Obama administration is also constructing mega-embassies in
Pakistan and Afghanistan that are completely without precedent. Throughout the Gulf region, billions are being spent to develop "critical base & port facilities," along with military training & arms shipments expanding the US global system of
militarization.Meanwhile, global military expenses continue to rise. For 2008, the US accounted for over 40% of global military expenses, eight times as much as its nearest rival, China. The US is of course alone in having a vast network of military
bases around the world and a global surveillance and control system, and in regularly invading other countries (with impunity, given its power). From 1999 to 2008, global military spending increased 45%, with the US accounting for 58% of the total.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 63
Jun 1, 2010
Noam Chomsky:
Eliminate nukes under UN; already voted 147-to-1 against US
It is clear how the threat of nuclear weapons can be ended: they can be eliminated, a legal obligation of the nuclear powers, as the World Court determined a decade ago. More broadly, there are sensible and feasible plans to restrict all production of
weapons-usable fissile materials to an international agency, to which states can apply for nonmilitary uses. The UN Committee on Disarmament has already votes for a verifiable treaty with these provisions in 2004. The vote was 147 to 1 (the US) with two
abstentions (Israel & Britain). A negative vote by the reigning global superpower amounts to a veto, in fact a double veto: the proposals cannot be implemented, and are banned from public awareness. But these outcomes are not graven in stone. There are
concrete steps that can be taken to progress toward these critical goals. And an informed & engaged public, worldwide, can act to ensure that the opportunity is not lost. One important step would be the establishment of nuclear weapons-free zones.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.167
Jun 1, 2010
Noam Chomsky:
Iran has no nukes, but Israel & Pakistan & India do
Obama called for tough direct diplomacy "without preconditions" in order "to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior," namely pursuing a nuclear program and supporting terrorism. If Iran abandons its troubling behavior, the
US might move toward normal diplomatic and economic relations, Obama proposed, but "if Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation." Furthermore, Obama proceeded, he will strengthen the
NPT "so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions." He made no mention of the conclusion of US intelligence that Iran had not had a weapons program for five years, unlike
US allies in Israel, Pakistan, and India, the three countries that all maintain extensive nuclear weapons programs (with direct US support), all unmentioned as well.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.249
Jun 1, 2010
Page last updated: Jul 19, 2011