Your browser does not support the HTML5 canvas tag.

15 February, 2018

An emphatic example shows how deeply the US establishment considers war a permanent and unquestionable situation

The following example shows emphatically to what degree war has become a norm for the US establishment. David Stockman was hosted by the Fox Business Network to speak about the deficit and managed to upset the whole panel with his clear 'anti-war' positions. Below, a part of the discussion and commenting. Stockman states:

           This military spending is crazy. If you take all the hostels in the world, China, so-called hostels - I don't believe it - 200 billion, Russia 70 billion, Iran 12 billion, the whole GDP of ...

He gets interrupted by the host with a ridiculously simplified argument, without even mentioning the source of this argument:

           What do you have to say about the fact that 50 percent of the planes in the navy are not flyable?

But things are getting worse for her because ready-to-respond Stockman gives a straight and reasonable answer:

           That's because they are conducting seven wars that we don't need to have ...

At this point, the alarm hits red and we should assume that the 'bosses' from above are shouting in host's ears to interrupt the guest again. Indeed, the host interrupts and tries to change the substance of the discussion:

           Regardless, the military is not up to the speed in terms of readiness (!!!)

But unfortunately for her and her bosses, Stockman insists on his reasonable argument:

           No, no, we could get out of these wars, we get out of Afghanistan where we're still there, 17 years later. What are we doing in Somalia? ... That's why all this money allegedly needed for defence.

Then, Stockman remembers his Republican roots for a while by putting fiscal 'normality' above all, and targeting both military spending and social spending as being equally bad for the growing deficit!

           To get 82 billion dollars for defence increase that they don't need, no way do they need, they agreed to give the Democrats 65 billion more of domestic spending that we absolutely can't afford. So, now you have the warfare state, the welfare state, gaining up to kill the fiscal outlook of this country ...

But the alarm hits red again and the host insists on the military spending issue:

            When you say that they don't need military money, to what do you attribute all these accidents that we report on every day in the military?

But Stockman scores again and makes the whole Fox studio really upset:

             All these accidents that you report on, is because they are running the military red-hot around the world and they shouldn't be. All they have to do is stop, and there wouldn't be so many accidents. And we don't need to be running the military at this rate ...

He gets interrupted again by the - now desperate - host who needs to find something to justify the military spending, thus endless war:

            Do you think that's one of the reasons that ISIS is now on the run?

And again, unfortunately for her and her bosses, Stockman scores one more time by telling the truth:

             We created ISIS! We blew up the political consensus in the Iraq ... Bush going into Iraq, blew up the tentative agreement between the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds, blew up the whole country. When we finally left, which we had to, ISIS then took all the weapons we left behind ...

Meanwhile, the host is ready to explode because obviously she can't make this guy align (not even slightly) with the pro-war agenda and makes one last attempt, by trying to change - as always - the direction of the discussion, away from the substantial issues:

            So, since it was created under Bush, we shouldn't give the military any more money to put ISIS on the run? ... I don't follow ...

And Stockman, ready again, gives the appropriate answer:

           No, I'm saying we should stop intervening everywhere in the world because it is not a threat to the interest of the United States ...

At this point the show ends abruptly as the Fox understands that it can't handle this guy. End of the game: Fox pundits - David Stockman 0-5.

As you can see, neither Stockman, nor anyone else there, puts the slightest doubt about the 'necessity' for cuts on social spending, however, when the discussion turns to military spending, the Fox machine makes it clear that cuts on US military spending are out of question.

Notice also through the whole discussion a common practice in mainstream media: the host is trying to disorientate the guest by dragging discussion away from the real issue - in this case, the fact that endless wars are a key factor for the economic downturn of the United States. When she fails, she becomes really upset, as she realizes that Stocknam remains focused on the point he wants to make.

This is a common picture in the 'liberal' mainstream media too. Exactly because both the Democrats and the Republicans have been completely taken over by the banks, the corporations, and the deep state, faithfully implementing the neocon/neoliberal agenda.

War is one of the things that will never question and they will do everything to preserve it at all costs.


  1. Its too bad Stockman can't see the quantitative benefit of social spending over military spending, when he is so spot on about the military