JK Galbraith: Corporate Power is Driving Force Behind US Foreign Policy

[Martin Eden]

This needs to be read and understood by every citizen who accepts without question that military expenditures are necessary and good:

Published on Thursday, July 15, 2004 by the Guardian / United Kingdom

A Cloud over Civilization

Corporate Power is the Driving Force behind US Foreign Policy - and the Slaughter in Iraq

by JK Galbraith

<<snip>>
In 2003, close to half the total US government discretionary expenditure was used for military purposes. A large part was for weapons procurement or development. Nuclear-powered submarines run to billions of dollars, individual planes to tens of millions each.

Such expenditure is not the result of detached analysis. From the relevant industrial firms come proposed designs for new weapons, and to them are awarded production and profit. In an impressive flow of influence and command, the weapons industry accords valued employment, management pay and profit in its political constituency, and indirectly it is a treasured source of political funds. The gratitude and the promise of political help go to Washington and to the defense budget. And to foreign policy or, as in Vietnam and Iraq, to war. That the private sector moves to a dominant public-sector role is apparent.

<<snip>>
In 2003, close to half the total US government discretionary expenditure was used for military purposes. A large part was for weapons procurement or development. Nuclear-powered submarines run to billions of dollars, individual planes to tens of millions each.

Such expenditure is not the result of detached analysis. From the relevant industrial firms come proposed designs for new weapons, and to them are awarded production and profit. In an impressive flow of influence and command, the weapons industry accords valued employment, management pay and profit in its political constituency, and indirectly it is a treasured source of political funds. The gratitude and the promise of political help go to Washington and to the defense budget. And to foreign policy or, as in Vietnam and Iraq, to war. That the private sector moves to a dominant public-sector role is apparent.

Read more;
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0715-06.htm

[lumpy]

1. Thanks for posting this

Everyone should read this.

[TroubleMan]

2. This is what Smedley Butler said years ago

He's one of the greatest Marine Corps heros. In boot camp you learn a lot about Smedley Butler, Dan Daly, Archibald Henderson, and Chesty Puller. They are icons in the Corps.


Smedley gave a great speech after he was out. Here it is:

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[Martin Eden]

3. Thanks, and OOPS!

I didn't realized I failed to copy my 2nd <<snip>>, and posted the first one twice!

I'm familiar with Smedeley Butler, but not the other gentlemen you listed.

[TroubleMan]

6. They're just Marine heros-they didn't make any statements like Butler

nt

[teryang]

4. There are individual planes that cost over 1 billion each

Of course it is insanity on a collective scale. These huge capital investments produce nothing.

[Martin Eden]

7. It's bad enough that we're militarists ourselves.

Unfortunately we export a great deal of military hardware, and we lead by example.

At the end of the Cold War we had a unique opportunity in history. We were victorious, dominant, and with enlightened leadership could have lead the world into a new era of prosperity and peace.

Instead, the military industrial complex found a new rationale to sustain itself. The terrorist violence directed towards us is a direct consequence of the foreign policy spawned by corporate militarism. The most important thing about the "war on terror" -- or any war -- is that it perpetuates the international hostility that feeds corporate profit and its allies in the political establishment.

Technically we live in a democracy, but consent of the governed is a sham when the citizenry is oblivious and their consent consists of two choices that have neither the intention nor the capability to dismantle the war machine that spews its cloud over civilization.

[teryang]

8. Armaments are our number one export

...and we are the world's number one exporter of armaments.

Export programs are a primary function of the military components of US embassies. By making foreign governments dependent on American weapons suppliers, we take them over in fact, if not in name.

Egypt's impotence in foreign policy is a direct result of American military aid.

[Martin Eden]

10. I'm somewhat embarrassed to say this ...

... but I read Orwell's 1984 for the first time just a few months ago (at age 46). Perhaps it's best that I read it at this moment in history, because 20 years after the title date the novel seems more prophetic than fictional.

The concept of perpetual war -- to consume human productivity in order to keep the people under the thumb of the ruling power -- is more apparent than ever, even though it undoubtedly existed during Orwell's time.

More important than corporate profit is the power of control, because a compliant population is the first prerequisite. The American people are not even close to throwing off their shackles, because they either can't see it or don't know what it consists of.

[burrowowl]

5. JKG is a National

Treasure and a very very intelligent man. His son I think is following in his footsteps.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. I'm glad to see he's still writing

The man is 95! I had feared he had permantently retired, or even died. His experience is invaluable to us all.

[stldemocrat]

9. Kerry

Kerry has done his part to fight this. He voted against the Reagan buildup (cruise missiles/B2, etc.) and the $87 billion for Iraq war.

[Martin Eden]

11. The shame is that any vote against military procurement

is a political liability these days.

[stldemocrat]

12. I don't think so...

And Kerry must not either, since he is standing up to shrub on the $87 billion vote..

[Martin Eden]

14. Kerry has to stand up for his vote

against the $87 billion appropriation. It was a recent vote on a major issue, so he has no choice but to defend it.

The point is, do most "swing" voters see that vote in a positive light?

This is what most average Americans think: even if they're having second thoughts about the decision to invade Iraq, they support full funding for the troops and doing what's necessary to complete the mission. They see it as irresponsible to vote against this funding, and hypocritical coming from someone who voted for the IWR.

Unfortunately the reasonable explanation gets lost amid the noise of attack ads -- that Kerry's vote was an effort to make the Bush adminstration more responsible by adequately funding the war effort. Rather than increase an already exploding deficit, responsible lawmakers wanted to fund this appropriation by reversing a fraction of the long term tax cut for the super-wealthy.

The idea was to get a more responsible bill that would fund the mission without adding to the huge debt we're already passing on to our children.

But how many swing voters understand this? Hopefully, Kerry will not shy away from this vote and will use it to expose the irresponsibility behind the bill that passed. But right now, this vote is being used to bludgeon him as a flip-flopper.

[hansolsen]

15. When, exactly, did we vote to spend more on defense than the rest of

the whole world combined (or top twenty countries, combined?)? Was I asleep? How did I miss it? Surely there was a big debate. Huh?

[meow2u3]

16. They just found out?!

A bit slow on the uptake, I say. We knew this all along at DU :nuke:

[whirlygigspin]

17. the best scam going

Boo!

wanna buy a weapon, scardy cat?

BOO!