US Hegemony and the Security State

And I define the Security State including mass surveilance, militarized policing and totalitarian economic control here and abroad.


Noam Chomsky wrote an essay today on “National Security” which can be found
at Common Dreams:

www.commondreams.org...

…where the title is “America’s Real Foreign Policy: Global Corporatization by Force.

This piece is long and starts with this simple statement:

The question of how foreign policy is determined is a crucial one in world affairs.

He restricts himself to US foreign policy for a number of reasons that he cites.

It’s an overview of US forgein policy since WWII and particularly the “shift” in reasoning behind the continued build up of security apparatus (I think the plural would be apparati – but can’t find it) since the fall of the Soviet Union.

There is a “received standard version,” common to academic scholarship, government pronouncements, and public discourse. It holds that the prime commitment of governments is to ensure security, and that the primary concern of the U.S. and its allies since 1945 was the Russian threat.
There are a number of ways to evaluate the doctrine. One obvious question to ask is: What happened when the Russian threat disappeared in 1989? Answer: everything continued much as before.


The U.S. immediately invaded Panama, killing probably thousands of people and installing a client regime. This was routine practice in U.S.-dominated domains -- but in this case not quite as routine. For first time, a major foreign policy act was not justified by an alleged Russian threat.

He goes on to talk about intervention in Countries around the world.

A quote that is quite relevant to current tensions in the Ukraine is this factual tidbit:

Another important event took place in Europe. Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to allow the unification of Germany and its membership in NATO, a hostile military alliance. In the light of recent history, this was a most astonishing concession. There was a quid pro quo. President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker agreed that NATO would not expand “one inch to the East,” meaning into East Germany. Instantly, they expanded NATO to East Germany.
Gorbachev was naturally outraged, but when he complained, he was instructed by Washington that this had only been a verbal promise, a gentleman’s agreement, hence without force. If he was naïve enough to accept the word of American leaders, it was his problem.
All of this, too, was routine, as was the silent acceptance and approval of the expansion of NATO in the U.S. and the West generally. President Bill Clinton then expanded NATO further, right up to Russia’s borders. Today, the world faces a serious crisis that is in no small measure a result of these policies.

Piece continues on and on with fact after fact about US Imperialism.

Over the weekend I watched a documentary on Amazon (free with Prime) called “Standing Army” which had the premise that Wars were begun not for the reasons stated (whether true or not) but to actually get boots on the ground and LEAVE THEM THERE. The US is occupying the world. The production values are adequate but the material is excellence though not exhaustive.

Why are we building a huge new military base in Italy????? Perhaps to jump into Africa? We never hear about the millions of voices around the world protesting these “temporary” bases (that never go away)????

The film changed my view of O’CONUS bases (Army Brat – grew up all over the world – and it offered me a great education – Thanks Mom & Dad for getting us off base whenever possible) – I really believed they were temporary (most of the bases I lived on have been closed or repurposed). I really had no idea.

And the cost – going to no-bid contractors mostly with their horrible work ethics. No wonder Detroit is a ghost town – all our taxes go oversees to enforce empire.

Hey, whatever you believe this is good stuff to know. I hope a few will look into the essay and the film and….

Just for fun have a look at Noam Chomsky’s take on Operation Paperclip at:

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

You've said that if a real post-World War II history were ever written, this would be the first chapter. 

It would be a part of the first chapter. Recruiting Nazi war criminals and saving them is bad enough, but imitating their activities is worse. So the first chapter would primarily describe US-and some British-operations throughout the world that aimed to destroy the anti-fascist resistance and restore the traditional, essentially fascist, order to power.

and with that I’ll go back to watching Oliver Stone’s “The Untold History of the Unitied States”.

Noam Chomsky as a source? Just, no.

your detailed outline was very accurate in the PRE-Currency Reset USA conduct in the World

but, the USA is currently being de-throned as the big-dog on-the-porch

We know that during the talks between the US and USSR as on German unification the Soviets wanted everthing down to the smallest detail in writing. That they some how forgot to get a an agreement about NATO expantion is hard to believe if such a thing existed. More likely it never came up as nobody could events going that far, that the Warsaw Pact would collapse and the USSR not far behind it. Heck once that occured the talk was of Russia itsefl joining NATO.

a reply to: Metallicus

Why?