There has been a great deal written and said about what is seen as the imperial project and the way in which imperialist aims and aspirations invariably are expressed in terms of war. Perhaps one of the most startling figures available is the way in which war itself has become very much a slaughterhouse of the population and is no longer some ridiculous adventure to either expand territory or impose one country’s will on another or both. From ‘humble beginnings’ where the more recent conflicts saw around 40% of casualties (deaths) as non combatants, those not in uniform, to the present far more sophisticated onslaughts where the civilian kill rate translates as 90% of the total you can see how what is now happening is a bloodbath, with its only aim the destruction of as many of the population as possible.
The apologists for this state of affairs are many. From out and out warmongers like Blair and Bush there is a line and pattern established where the aim of the invasions, interventions, regime changes or wars is to kill anyone in the way of the capital project and its aims for growth and constant profit. Capital can have it no other way, there is just no room to do business, if that is the correct term, in the normal fashion. Capital through the imperial project and boundless militarism simply takes what it wants on the terms it declares to be fair and just. This process is aided at all times by a purely racist element where those being killed and whose resources are stripped are seen only as commercial cattle that must be slaughtered before any “just and equitable” return can be rendered to the rulers of the planet.
If you look at the US bases position around the globe, a good starting point in anyone’s language, you could do far worse than look to what Chalmers Johnson says in this regard. Johnson who describes himself as a former spear carrier for the imperial project illuminates the area well. His position is that once he appreciated the massive proliferation of US bases world wide there are certain inescapable conclusions. Johnson wrote a book called, “Dismantling the Empire” and at page 30 he notes that;” Not including Iraq and Afghanistan, we (the US) now station more than half a million US, troops, spies, contractors, dependants and others on military bases located in more than 130 countries, many of them presided over by dictatorial regimes that have given their citizens no say in the decision to let us in (emphasis added). That expresses what is a total commitment to global hegemony along the lines of what Chomsky has been describing for well over half a century.
In “Deterring Democracy” (and many many other books) Chomsky looks at this drive to hegemony and notes at page 408 that. “Our noble leaders must courageously confront and miraculously defeat the barbarians at the gate, so that we can once again “stand tall’ ..Since each foreign triumph is in fact a fiasco, the aftermath must be obscured as the government-media alliance turns to some new crusade. The barbarians must be defenceles: it would be foolish to confront anyone who might fight back” This attitude is the beating heart of the imperial project, it at once relies on military supremacy of a sort, usually in the air and then it is always forced to embark on a ground level assault. Once at ground level the outcome follows the usual pattern.
Resort is had to any device, or chemical means, any psy-ops possible including torture and other military features grandly appear to destroy any opposition to the asset stripping exercise about to take place. Despite the words to a popular song where it was the British who ran through the bushes and the brambles to places a rabbit wouldn’t go the US is the current and past gold medal recipient for this type of behaviour at the highest possible level. When it’s time to go they sure get going!
There is no shortage of intelligent and perceptive material that deals with the Capital Project, the Imperial Project and the need for militarism to closely align all these forces with racism to, as it were, sweeten up the killing and destruction and give it a semblance of an almost divine mission to defeat the savages, the rabble and the barbarians. Tariq Ali has very cogently commented that what is happening and what has always happened is that democracy is being regulated. By that method freedom and liberty is constantly sacrificed to avarice and greed and is then reduced to a hollow assertion.
In that way the rabble can be used to fight and pay for the war generated endlessly by the imperial and capital projects. The elites who employ and use the managing class of politicians CEOs and the like have absolutely no other desire than the insane escalation of their wealth. It is simply a form of psychopathic behaviour that really does need to be addressed. Who but a true psychopath could want riches that can barely be described by number, and power that is only possible to be measured by death and destruction. Such behaviour runs against virtually every moral precept we are taught or learn in our lives, yet it is a staple diet to those who run the planet.
Tariq Ali has written a very interesting book titled,” The Obama Syndrome” where, with no apologies offered and with a ruthless attention to detail, he has disassembled the lies and myths at the heart of the Obama administration. Which never really promised anything but empty words and now it seems so strange that so many feel betrayed by a man who was never going to deliver anything but disappointment. Ali talks about ,” the ease with which politicians auctioned themselves to the lobby system, with selected lobbyists themselves helping to draft new laws that favored their interests. ” There is a little more depth to that, where what needs elucidation is the fact that both the politicians and the lobbyists are in the direct employ of the elites and do the bidding of the elites in order to construct a way of life for themselves tot the exclusion of others, like the rabble and the masses. This style of thinking and behaviour is what is often referred to as “the pecking order” and was so well described by Rudolf Rocker and Chomsky as the inoculation of a delusion that salvation always comes from above. Thus the hierarchy is born and with it comes the enslavement of the population to false values and lies, while the elite responsible for the grand deception feast on the flesh of those who serve and obey.
Ali sees the continuation of this behaviour as, “the symbiosis between big money and big politics (being) visible in most parts of the world, but in the United States money had become a visible Godhead; its influence had reached an astonishing level, reducing politics to public relations, institutionalizing apathy and often consigning creativity, boldness and intellectual experimentation to the dustbin. Underneath the harmonizing pluralism lay the dictatorship of capital. (page 30-31)” This process can be seen and examined in the Middle East and the US involvement there.
In “Deterring Democracy (page 436) Chomsky deals with the basis for the US policies of the imperial project in summary form. In his view, ” US diplomacy is guided by a strategic conception that has changed little over the years . The primary concern is the energy resources of the region, to be managed by the “Arab facade” in the interests of the US and its Brirish lieutenant. The family dictatorships must be protected from indigenous nationalism by regional enforcers with US-British muscle in reserve…..Regional actors are granted rights insofar as they contribute to “stability’ in the technical sense.”
For those countries who manage to escape the grip of the US imperial project their actions are then contrasted against the almost saintly deeds of the project so that,” Huge massacres are treated by much the same criteria: their terror and violence are crimes, ours are statecraft or understandable error (page 380).” Once the ground work has been laid and with constant media support this is but a very major step along the way to seeking domination at any cost. No death toll is too high not even our own, as long as those cowards who send people to their deaths for no good reason are not seen and never exposed for their brutality and lies.
The position is no different in Australia and is probably worse because there is no one more cowardly or supine than the person who ties the knot on the noose only to turn away as the body drops through the trap door. Successive lap dog Australian governments have done nothing to expunge or confront our shocking racist past present and future as well as our servile obedience to what we see as greater forces. As killers and murderers we make excellent house guests in the mansions of the elites. What follows is our blind subservience to US imperial aims and our own grandiose dreams of an australian presence on the world stage of hegemony.
There is a recurring theme in Chomsky’s many works that finds expression again in “Deterring Democracy” for completeness a full quote from what is said there at page 373 is included here. As Chomsky sees the present position and what has led to it he notes that . “The United States is near the limit in its safeguards for freedom from state coercion, and also in the poverty of its political life. here is essentially one political party, the business party, with two factions. Shifting coalitions of investors account for a large part of political history. Unions or other popular organizations that might offer a way for the public to play some role in influencing programs and policy choices, scarcely function apart from the narrowest realm. The ideological system is bounded by the the consensus of the privileged. elections are largely a ritual form.”
Those observations are true in Australia as well, where largely second and third rate minds are left to attend to the day to day maintenance of the system in the interests of the elites. The petty squabbles and in-fighting that emanates from that arrangement do little to dispel the fears of the rabble and the population that they have been sold out to the financial interests of those who rule the planet. On a daily basis interviews with politicians are actually at least two conversations occurring at the same time. One is the question and the other is the answer the twains never meet. As a result a simple question, quite easily answered often with one or maybe e few words is greeted with a chapter from some unpublished book on just how Australians should and must think and act. If the results in terms of actual deaths around the globe did not exist you could be excused for thinking that a new form of comedy had been discovered.
Recent Australian developments show that you can have government complete with booming tones of accomplishment and intent when the leader has never been elected at all and the present government exists at the behest of a few, completely mislead politicians who make up for what they lack in knowledge and effect with guile and a sort of basic marsupial cunning. When given the opportunity of another election to break the impasse, the response was that would just not happen. Once elected the only raison d’etre is to stay there. Their views of their behaviour of course would be the opposite but once again it is stressed that it is entirely a matter for you as to what your final opinion may or may not be. Even to the extent as to whether it is necessary to have a view at all.
What follows is the article by Engelhardt. George Ikners ikners.com
[Note for TomDispatch Readers: TD pieces tend to be long, so I shouldn’t be surprised to discover that this site’s readers are also devoted book buyers, and that you have given in an unprecedented way in return for signed copies of Adam Hochschild’s remarkable new history of World War I, To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918. That offer is now at an end. My deepest thanks to everyone who took it up and so kept this site humming along!
Remember as well that TD makes modest money every time you visit Amazon.com from a TomDispatch book link and buy anything at all. With that in mind, if you like today’s post, consider picking up a copy of my book The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s. If you meant to contribute for Hochschild’s history but didn’t, you can still go to Amazon via
TD and buy it (an act you won’t regret). Or in this week of the war on words at TD, in which Jonathan Schell wrote on how the Obama administration assaulted the dictionary, consider picking up a copy of his amazingly prescient book The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People. It came out just as the U.S. was invading Iraq, when “nonviolence” seemed a fool’s game, but in ways no one could imagine, Schell “knew” that something like the Arab Spring would come. On any purchase you make, we get a small cut at no extra cost to you, and it adds up. Tom]
Nine War Words That Define Our World
“Victory” Is the Verbal Equivalent of a Yeti
By Tom Engelhardt
Now that Washington has at least six wars cooking (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and more generally, the global war on terror), Americans find themselves in a new world of war. If, however, you haven’t joined the all-volunteer military, any of our 17 intelligence outfits, the Pentagon, the weapons companies and hire-a-gun corporations associated with it, or some other part of the National Security Complex, America’s distant wars go on largely without you (at least until the bills come due).
War has a way of turning almost anything upside down, including language. But with lost jobs, foreclosed homes, crumbling infrastructure, and weird weather, who even notices? This undoubtedly means that you’re using a set of antediluvian war words or definitions from your father’s day. It’s time to catch up.
So here’s the latest word in war words: what’s in, what’s out, what’s inside out. What follows are nine common terms associated with our present wars that probably don’t mean what you think they mean. Since you live in a twenty-first-century war state, you might consider making them your own.
Victory: Like defeat, it’s a “loaded” word and rather than define it, Americans should simply avoid it.
In his last press conference before retirement, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was asked whether the U.S. was “winning in Afghanistan.” He replied, “I have learned a few things in four and a half years, and one of them is to try and stay away from loaded words like ‘winning’ and ‘losing.’ What I will say is that I believe we are being successful in implementing the president’s strategy, and I believe that our military operations are being successful in denying the Taliban control of populated areas, degrading their capabilities, and improving the capabilities of the Afghan national security forces.”
In 2005, George W. Bush, whom Gates also served, used the word “victory” 15 times in a single speech (“National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”). Keep in mind, though, that our previous president learned about war in the movie theaters of his childhood where the Marines always advanced and Americans actually won. Think of his victory obsession as the equivalent of a mid-twentieth-century hangover.
In 2011, despite the complaints of a few leftover neocons dreaming of past glory, you can search Washington high and low for “victory.” You won’t find it. It’s the verbal equivalent of a Yeti. Being “successful in implementing the president’s strategy,” what more could you ask? Keeping the enemy on his “back foot”: hey, at $10 billion a month, if that isn’t “success,” tell me what is?
Maybe, if everything comes up roses, in some year soon we’ll be celebrating DE (Degrade the Enemy) Day.
Enemy: Any super-evil pipsqueak on whose back you can raise at least $1.2 trillion a year for the National Security Complex.
“I actually consider al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula with Al-Awlaki as a leader within that organization probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland.” So said Michael Leiter, presidential adviser and the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, last February, months before Osama bin Laden was killed (and Leiter himself resigned). Since bin Laden’s death, Leiter’s assessment has been heartily seconded in word and deed in Washington. For example, New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti recently wrote: “Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen is believed by the C.I.A. to pose the greatest immediate threat to the United States, more so than even Qaeda’s senior leadership believed to be hiding in Pakistan.”
Now, here’s the odd thing. Once upon a time, statements like these might have been tantamount to announcements of victory: That’s all they’ve got left?
Of course, once upon a time, if you asked an American who was the most dangerous man on the planet, you might have been told Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin, or Mao Zedong. These days, don’t think enemy at all; think comic-book-style arch-villain Lex Luthor or Doctor Doom — anyone, in fact, capable of standing in for globe-encompassing Evil.
Right now, post-bin-Laden, America’s super-villain of choice is Anwar al-Awlaki, an enemy with seemingly near superhuman powers to disturb Washington, but no army, no state, and no significant finances. The U.S.-born “radical cleric” lives as a semi-fugitive in Yemen, a poverty-stricken land of which, until recently, few Americans had heard. Al-Awlaki is considered at least partially responsible for two high-profile plots against the U.S.: the underwear bomber and package bombssent by plane to Chicago synagogues. Both failed dismally, even though neither Superman nor the Fantastic Four rushed to the rescue.
As an Evil One, al-Awlaki is a voodoo enemy, a YouTube warrior (“the bin Laden of the Internet”) with little but his wits and whatever superpowers he can muster to help him. He was reputedly responsible for helping to poison the mind of Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan before he blew away 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. There’s no question of one thing: he’s gotten inside Washington’s war-on-terror head in a big way. As a result, the Obama administration is significantly intensifying its war against him and the ragtag crew of tribesmen he hangs out with who go by the name of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Covert War: It used to mean secret war, a war “in the shadows” and so beyond the public’s gaze. Now, it means a conflict in the full glare of publicity that everybody knows about, but no one can do anything about. Think: in the news, but off the books.
Go figure: today, our “covert” wars are front-page news. The top-secret operation to assassinate Osama bin Laden garnered an unprecedented 69% of the U.S. media “newshole” the week after it happened, and 90% of cable TV coverage. And America’s most secretive covert warriors, elite SEAL Team 6, caused “SEAL-mania” to break out nationwide.
Moreover, no minor drone strike in the “covert” CIA-run air war in the Pakistani tribal borderlandsgoes unreported. In fact, as with Yemen today, future plans for the launching or intensification of Pakistani-style covert wars are now openly discussed, debated, and praised in Washington, as well as widely reported on. At one point, CIA Director Leon Panetta even bragged that, when it came to al-Qaeda, the Agency’s covert air war in Pakistan was “the only game in town.”
Think of covert war today as the equivalent of a heat-seeking missile aimed directly at that mainstream media newshole. The “shadows” that once covered whole operations now only cover accountability for them.
Permanent bases: In the American way of war, military bases built on foreign soil are the equivalent of heroin. The Pentagon can’t help building them and can’t live without them, but “permanent bases” don’t exist, not for Americans. Never.
That’s simple enough, but let me be absolutely clear anyway: Americans may have at least 865 bases around the world (not including those in war zones), but we have no desire to occupy other countries. And wherever we garrison (and where aren’t we garrisoning?), we don’t want to stay, not permanently anyway.
In the grand scheme of things, for a planet more than four billion years old, our 90 bases in Japan, a mere 60-odd years in existence, or our 227 bases in Germany, some also around for 60-odd years, or those in Korea, 50-odd years, count as little. Moreover, we have it on good word that permanent bases are un-American. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said as much in 2003 when the first of the Pentagon’s planned Iraqi mega-bases were already on the drawing boards. Hillary Clinton said so again just the other day, about Afghanistan, and an anonymous American official added for clarification: “There are U.S. troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently.” Korea anyone? So get it straight, Americans don’t want permanent bases. Period.
And that’s amazing when you think about it, since globally Americans are constantly building and upgrading military bases. The Pentagon is hooked. In Afghanistan, it’s gone totally wild — more than 400 of themand still building! Not only that, Washington is now deep into negotiations with the Afghan government to transform some of them into“joint bases” and stay on them if not until hell freezes over, then at least until Afghan soldiers can be whipped into an American-style army. Latest best guesstimate for that? 2017 without even getting close.
Fortunately, we plan to turn those many bases we built to the tune of billions of dollars, including the gigantic establishments at Bagram andKandahar, over to the Afghans and just hang around, possibly “for decades,” as — and the word couldn’t be more delicate or thoughtful –“tenants.”
And by the way, accompanying the recent reports that the CIA is preparing to lend the U.S. military a major covert hand, drone-style, in its Yemen campaign, was news that the Agency is building a base of its own on a rushed schedule in an unnamed Persian Gulf country. Just one base. But don’t expect that to be the end of it. After all, that’s like eating one potato chip.
Withdrawal: We’re going, we’re going… Just not quite yet and stop pushing!
If our bases are shots of heroin, then for the U.S. military leaving anyplace represents a form of “withdrawal,” which means the shakes. Like drugs, it’s just so darn easy to go in that Washington keeps doing it again and again. Getting out’s the bear. Who can blame them, if they don’t want to leave?
In Iraq, for instance, Washington has been in the grips of withdrawal fever since 2008 when the Bush administration agreed that all U.S. troops would leave by the end of this year. You can still hear those combat boots dragging in the sand. At this point, top administration and military officials are almost begging the Iraqis to let us remain on a few of our monster bases, like the ill-named Camp Victory or Balad Air Base, which in its heyday had air traffic that reputedly rivaled Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. But here’s the thing: even if the U.S. military officially departs, lock, stock, and (gun) barrel, Washington’s still not really planning on leaving.
In recent years, the U.S. has built near-billion-dollar “embassies” that are actually citadels-cum-regional-command-posts in the Greater Middle East. Just last week, four former U.S. ambassadors to Iraq made a plea to Congress to pony up the $5.2 billion requested by the Obama administration so that that the State Department can turn its Baghdad embassy into a massive militarized missionwith 5,100 hire-a-guns and a small mercenary air force.
In sum, “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh” is not a song that Washington likes to sing.
Drone War (see also Covert War): A permanent air campaign using missile-armed pilotless planes that banishes both withdrawal and victory to the slagheap of history.
Is it even a “war” if only one side ever appears in person and only one side ever suffers damage? America’s drones are often flown from thousands of miles away by “pilots” who, on leaving their U.S. bases after a work shift “in” a war zone, see signs warning them to drive carefully because this may be “the most dangerous part of your day.” This is something new in the history of warfare.
Drones are the covert weaponry of choice in our covert wars, which means, of course, that the military just can’t wait to usher chosen reporters into its secret labs and experimental testing grounds to reveal dazzling visions of future destruction.
To make sense of drones, we probably have to stop thinking about “war” and start envisaging other models — for example, that of the executioner who carries out a death sentence on another human being at no danger to himself. If a pilotless drone is actually an executioner’s weapon, a modern airborne version of the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or the electric chair, the death sentence it carries with it is not decreed by a judge and certainly not by a jury of peers.
It’s assembled by intelligence agents based on fragmentary (and often self-interested) evidence, organized by targeteers, and given the thumbs-up sign by military or CIA lawyers. All of them are scores, hundreds, thousands of miles away from their victims, people they don’t know, and may not faintly understand or share a culture with. In addition, the capital offenses are often not established, still to be carried out, never to be carried out, or nonexistent. The fact that drones, despite their “precision” weaponry, regularly take out innocent civilians as well as prospective or actual terrorists reminds us that, if this is our model, Washington is a drunken executioner.
In a sense, Bush’s global war on terror called drones up from the depths of its unconscious to fulfill its most basic urges: to be endless and to reach anywhere on Earth with an Old Testament-style sense of vengeance. The drone makes mincemeat of victory (which involves an endpoint), withdrawal (for which you have to be there in the first place), and national sovereignty (see below).
Corruption: Something inherent in the nature of war-torn Iraqis and Afghans from which only Americans, in and out of uniform, can save them.
Don’t be distracted by the $6.6 billion that, in the form of shrink-wrapped $100 bills, the Bush administration loaded onto C-130 transport planes, flew to liberated Iraq in 2003 for “reconstruction” purposes, and somehow mislaid. The U.S. special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction did recently suggest that it might prove to be “the largest theft of funds in national history”; on the other hand, maybe it was just misplaced… forever.
Iraq’s parliamentary speaker now claims that up to $18.7 billion in Iraqi oil funds have gone missing-in-action, but Iraqis, as you know, are corrupt and unreliable. So pay no attention. Anyway, not to worry, it wasn’t our money. All those crisp Benjamins came from Iraqi oil revenues that just happened to be held in U.S. banks. And in war zones, what can you do? Sometimes bad things happen to good $100 bills!
In any case, corruption is endemic to the societies of the Greater Middle East, which lack the institutional foundations of democratic societies. Not surprisingly then, in impoverished, narcotizedAfghanistan, it’s run wild. Fortunately, Washington has fought nobly against its ravages for years. Time and again, top American officials have cajoled, threatened, even browbeat Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his compatriots to get them to crack down on corrupt practices and hold honest elections to build support for the American-backed government in Kabul.
Here’s the funny thing though: a report on Afghan reconstruction recently released by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democratic majority staff suggests that the military and foreign “developmental” funds that have poured into the country, and which account for 97% of its gross domestic product, have played a major role in encouraging corruption. To find a peacetime equivalent, imagine firemen rushing to a blaze only to pour gasoline on it and then lash out at the building’s dwellers as arsonists.
National Sovereignty: 1. Something Americans cherish and wouldn’t let any other country violate; 2. Something foreigners irrationally cling to, a sign of unreliability or mental instability.
Here’s the twenty-first-century credo of the American war state. Please memorize it: The world is our oyster. We shall not weep. We may missile [bomb, assassinate, night raid, invade] whom we please, when we please, where we please. This is to be called “American safety.”
Those elsewhere, with a misplaced reverence for their own safety or security, or an overblown sense of pride and self-worth, who put themselves in harm’s way — watch out. After all, in a phrase: Sovereignty ‘R’ Us.
Note: As we still live on a one-way imperial planet, don’t try reversing any of the above, not even as a thought experiment. Don’t imagine Iranian drones hunting terrorists over Southern California or Pakistani special operations forces launching night raids on small midwestern towns. Not if you know what’s good for you.
War: A totally malleable concept that is purely in the eye of the beholder.
Which is undoubtedly why the Obama administration recently decided not to return to Congress for approval of its Libyan intervention as required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The administration instead issued a report essentially declaring Libya not to be a “war” at all, and so not to fall under the provisions of that resolution. As that report explained: “U.S. operations [in Libya] do not involve  sustained fighting or  active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve  the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties, or a serious threat thereof, or  any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.”
This, of course, opens up the possibility of quite a new and sunny American future on planet Earth, one in which it will no longer be wildly utopian to imagine war becoming extinct. After all, the Obama administration is already moving to intensify and expand its [fill in the blank] in Yemen, which will meet all of the above criteria, as its [fill in the blank] in the Pakistani tribal borderlands already does. Someday, Washington could be making America safe all over the globe in what would, miraculously, be a thoroughly war-less world.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. His latest book is The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s (Haymarket Books).
[Note: My special thanks go to three websites without which I simply couldn’t write pieces like this or cover the areas that interest me most: Antiwar.com, Juan Cole’s Informed Comment, and Paul Woodward’s the War in Context. All are invaluable to me. In addition, two daily services I couldn’t do without are Today’s Terrorism News, which comes out of New York University’s Center for Law and Security (and to which you can subscribe by clicking here), and the Af/Pak Channel Daily Brief, which comes out of the New America Foundation (and to which you can subscribe by clicking here). Both represent monumental effort and are appreciated.]
- Explosions In Pakistan Kill At Least 34 As CIA Director Leon Panetta Visits Islamabad (huffingtonpost.com)
- War as a word (ikners.com)
- A part of an interview at Democracy Now! with Adam Hochschild (ikners.com)
- The Environmet and fire (ikners.com)
- America Six Wars and Counting (politicore.wordpress.com)
- ‘The Five Myths About the U.S. Economy’ (huffingtonpost.com)
- “Tom Engelhardt: Osama Bin Laden’s American Legacy: It’s Time to Stop Celebrating and Go Back to Kansas” and related posts (huffingtonpost.com)
- Agenda Driven Terror (miscellany101.wordpress.com)
- Nailing Osama (ikners.com)
- Legal Torture? Only in the USA (ikners.com)
- The imperial project is not cheap and every penny is diverted from worthwhile causes like health, education etc etc (ikners.com)
- America, the Anti-Imperialist, Imperialist (bertman007.wordpress.com)
- Where’s the beef? A visit to a Beijing slaughterhouse (beijingboyce.com)
- Convictions on World War I: The War and The Workers by Rosa Luxemburg (socyberty.com)
- Why did imperialist nations begin to release control of their colonies after world war 2 (wiki.answers.com)
- Book Review (ikners.com)
- This Damn American Shame! by Philip A. Farruggio (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
- The link from the capital project to the imperial project and endless war (ikners.com)
- Tom Engelhardt: Dumb Question of the 21st Century: Is It Legal? (huffingtonpost.com)
- ‘To End All Wars:’ Lessons From the Past – Why It’s So Hard to Stop Wars and Prevent New Ones (tleonidas.wordpress.com)
- Does imperialism still need to be fought? A reply to Mike Ely (redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com)
- Chomsky is very rarely if ever incorrect (ikners.com)
- About a book (ikners.com)
- Philosophy Weekend: Adam Hochschild and the Serious Study of War (litkicks.com)
- ‘To End All Wars’: Adam Hochschild chronicles the English resisters of World War I (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- The Pacifists and the Trenches (dinmerican.wordpress.com)
- On preventing Democracy-Noam Chomsky (ikners.com)
- Is there a way out? Where is the Exit? Which light do you follow? (ikners.com)
- Ideologies Clashing in Fantasy of American General Strike (buelahman.wordpress.com)
- A brief review of some of Noam Chomsky’s erroneous positions by Fazal Rahman, Ph.D. (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
- The ridiculous cost of empire and the wars that sustain it. (ikners.com)
- Some good books on the imperial Project (ikners.com)