SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us military
With Regards to the Christening of the USS Patrick Gallagher
Because we strongly believe, nay absolutely know, that the U.S. does not need another warship.
Aug 29, 2024
To Whom It May Concern:
Because I have twice visited the West Bank and know the personal stories of 40 year-old Palestinian men who were imprisoned as boys for simply yelling at Israeli soldiers—and beaten and dehumanized for months before being released without trial;
And because I now know that those horrific, forever haunting experiences were and remain commonplace for Palestinian youth and are symptomatic of a world where, “we (Israelis) believe they are worth more than they” (Palestinians);
And because by paying close attention to non-main-stream American and foreign media I know the horrific truth of Gaza;
And because I have a good sense that when thousands are killed under months of ceaseless bombing and thousands more remain buried under the rubble yet to be found, the crime rises beyond war to become, inarguably, a “genocide”;
And because I know of the influence of AIPAC and U.S. defense industry corporations on U.S. Congress members and, hence, on American foreign policy;
And because I know well that the siege of Gaza could not continue without U.S. cover and support;
And because, as not much more than an adolescent, as a consequence of the fiction fed me by a conventional education, I volunteered to go off to Vietnam;
And because I know that, as a consequence of that war of choice, two to three million Vietnamese were killed in defense of their country---and that 2-3 million others are institutionalized today unable to take care of themselves as 2nd and 3rd generation victims of Agent Orange;
And, because I also mourn the 58,281 Americans commemorated on “the wall”, lost in that war, generally, perhaps, believing the same fiction I had;
And because I know that millions, yes millions, of innocents have died in my lifetime, arguably victims of American wars of choice, endorsed and promoted by the American defense industry, in Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Syria, Yemen, etc., (hardly an all-inclusive list);
And because I and others, on many occasions since the Berrigan brothers, in a Prince of Peace Plowshares action on February 12, 1997, have returned again and again to protest other
christenings” at Bath;
And because we strongly believe, nay absolutely know, that the U.S. does not need more warships, but rather that General Dynamics ought to be “converting” to the manufacture of “green” technologies.
It is for these reasons, in the spirit of the “Plowshares” movement, we chose to inconvenience the so-called “christening” attendees on July 27th—that they might give pause to consider the merits of our actions. That they too, might join us in a virtual revolution—to turn away from violence, to demand that our country do the same, to be a force for cooperation among the brotherhood of nations, rather than endorsing endless militarism.
For these reasons I chose to join like-minded fellow citizens in our efforts to make more widely known our nation’s reckless conduct. I proclaim my innocence and will be very pleased to have the opportunity to defend that position in court.
Not in my name!
Dud Hendrick
Deer Isle, Maine
USNA Graduate —1963
USAF Officer — 1963-1967
Keep ReadingShow Less
Did the US Government Under Trump Spread Vaccine Disinformation Around the World?
A few thoughts on an idiotic psyop that may have killed innocent people and blown back against our own citizens.
Jul 31, 2024
In June, Reutersreported on a hitherto secret U.S. program connected with the Covid-19 pandemic. In the spring of 2020, as the coronavirus rapidly spread throughout the world, our government sought to respond to Chinese disinformation which attempted to deflect responsibility for the virus’s origin by claiming that it had originated in a biological research lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland. What was our government’s plan? To fight fire with fire.
This was at the same time that the then-president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, was making noises about a closer relationship to China, even hinting that if China prioritized sending vaccine to his country, he would cede territory in the South China Sea to Beijing. Simultaneously, an element within the U.S. military in the Pacific was agitating Washington about keeping the Philippines on side and fighting the deluge of Chinese propaganda.
As a result, the Pentagon authorized a covert disinformation campaign against China, focusing on discrediting Chinese vaccine and protective medical equipment like masks. The channels of propaganda would be Twitter (now X), Facebook, and other social media. The campaign appears to have worked: the Philippines ended up with a very low vaccination rate in international comparison (in spite of Duterte’s efforts), and a high death rate.
While it is generally acknowledged that the Chinese vaccine (known as CoronaVac or Sinovac) is less effective, it is hardly useless: typically a 60-70-percent effectiveness versus the roughly 90-percent effectiveness of Western vaccines. Thus, it could have saved lives in the Philippines but for the U.S. disinformation campaign.
It is one more reason why Trump and his appointees should never be entrusted with public office. Will Congress ever investigate this misbegotten operation and finally nail down the chain of events?
It’s all there in the Reuters article, and there is no need to expatiate on the obvious immorality of the operation, quite apart from its colossal stupidity—at the same time U.S. public health officials were tearing out their hair trying to combat domestic Covid-19 disinformation, and doctors and nurses were risking their lives caring for terminally ill vaccine refusers, their government was pumping the same ideological poison into the minds of innocent people abroad. The nonchalant statement of an unnamed Pentagon official says it all: “We weren’t looking at this from a public health perspective. We were looking at how we could drag China through the mud.”
The report left a few dangling lose ends, however, that deserve further investigation by Congress and the Pentagon inspector general.
Are U.S. special forces out of control? The report says that the program was initiated after persistent lobbying by the then-commander of Special Operations Command Pacific, General Jonathan Braga. The article implies that he pleaded directly to Washington. Did his superiors at U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii know what he was doing? Did they approve? We know from Reuters that various U.S. ambassadors in Southeast Asia did not approve, and they would ordinarily have overruled the general because it was a stupid idea that could harm diplomatic relations. But because the then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper designated the propaganda campaign as a de facto wartime action, the diplomats’ objections could be disregarded.
U.S. special forces were vastly expanded during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and were given greater operational flexibility. They have also tended to produce loose cannons throughout the ranks. General Stanley McChrystal was special forces commander at the height of the Iraq war and later became commander of all coalition forces in Afghanistan. His career came to grief when he had the bad judgment to insult President Obama and other civilian leaders in front of a Rolling Stone reporter. Apparently, the civilian pukes in Washington lacked the general’s gung-ho attitude that with just a little more door-kicking and pyrotechnics, Afghanistan would be pacified—something that hadn’t happened since the Mongol invasions.
This kinetic mentality can get out of hand, as it did in 2017. Four Navy SEALs who were posted to the U.S. embassy in Mali, in a “juvenile” attempt to haze an Army special forces soldier, killed him. Their court martial, in a strange display of leniency, sentenced the most culpable perpetrator to only 10 years in prison, while one of the four defendants did not even receive a punitive discharge. The 10-year sentence was later vacated, with the defendant hiring a Trump lawyer to try to get him off the hook.
Ironically, vaccine refusal was the cause of another special forces stunt. Personnel from the Navy Special Warfare Command, including SEALs, not only declined to be vaccinated, but sued the Department of Defense. Their venue-shopping landed them in the Fort Worth court room of U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a favorite destination for nutty conservative causes, and shockingly but not surprisingly, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the Supreme Court blocked the judge’s ruling, but only insofar as it allowed the Navy to reassign, as opposed to discipline or discharge, the plaintiffs, while litigation continued.
What the personnel had done merited not merely reassignment or discharge, but potentially a court martial for the following: deliberately rendering themselves undeployable; endangering other service members; gross insubordination; and possibly even mutiny, as it was an organized action against their unit.
I have written before how religion is bandied about for political advantage by people whose own religious faith is ludicrously insincere. The justification of the SEALs—whose profession is to kill people—was a risible claim that deep Christian devotion prompted their refusal, advancing the heretofore undiscovered theological tenet that modification of their bodies by vaccine is an “affront to their Creator.” Apparently that doctrine exempts steroid abuse, which is common in the Navy’s special warfare community.
Even the military has begun to recognize that special forces may have become the tail that wags the dog—too big (bigger than the entire German army), diluted in quality, often operating outside the regular chain of command, and infected with a cowboy mentality. The mindless popular adulation, particularly of SEALs, has according to some observers had an adverse impact on civil-military relations. Perhaps we will always need door-kickers, but should they be overruling ambassadors in order to execute a cruel and asinine operation in a friendly country?
Who ultimately ordered the covert operation? The Reuters piece noted that Esper signed the directive to conduct the operation. The legality of his action rested on a provision in the 2019 defense authorization act permitting the military to conduct clandestine influence operations against other countries, including “outside of areas of active hostilities.”
This only raises more questions. Were the defense and intelligence committees of Congress, then controlled by the Democrats, duly notified of the disinformation campaign? If so, did the notification simply state that a covert psychological operation was underway, or did it provide enough details to make it clear that it was based on lies that could endanger the population of a friendly country? What was the reaction of Congress?
Perhaps we will always need door-kickers, but should they be overruling ambassadors in order to execute a cruel and asinine operation in a friendly country?
It seems unlikely that even as powerful a bureaucratic actor as the secretary of defense would order such a sensitive operation in defiance of the State Department without the guidance of those above him, or at least as a result of their signing off on his plan. The rules of Washington normally impel a person like Esper to seek cover for his actions. Accordingly, it is probable that he either notified the president directly or through the national security council of his order.
Then-President Trump had already directed the CIA in 2019 to conduct covert psychological operations inside China, so it is hardly a stretch to speculate that he would have had no problem approving DoD’s covert operation in the Philippines. It is one more reason why Trump and his appointees should never be entrusted with public office. Will Congress ever investigate this misbegotten operation and finally nail down the chain of events?
How do we know the operation did not blow back on the United States? The military is prohibited by law from conducting propaganda campaigns in the United States. But given the instant global connectedness of the internet, how could the Pentagon be so sure that its black propaganda campaigns in other countries wouldn’t leak back to the American population? They were, after all, using Twitter and Facebook accounts.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Filipino population in the United States was 4.4 million in 2020, the third-largest Asian-American group. It is inconceivable that none of them would have had contact with friends and relatives in the Philippines who might have been gulled by the American disinformation. Had their contacts made them vaccine-hesitant, it would have exacerbated the already epidemic anti-vaccine movement here.
Why did it take so long to shut down the program? Shortly after the inauguration, representatives from Facebook arranged a meeting with incoming Biden administration officials to complain about the covert program, which contradicted the company’s policy against spreading vaccine disinformation. The officials were properly horrified, but again, there are loose ends to the Reuters story.
Why hadn’t the new administration learned about the program through Pentagon channels already during the transition? Why did it take until the spring of 2021 to order DoD to shut it down? And in spite of the order, why did the program linger through the summer? Was the Biden administration lax in its follow-up, or was the Pentagon out of control?
Over the decades, the U.S. military has conducted numerous programs of breathtaking stupidity: the above-ground nuclear tests of the 1950s that exposed draftees to atomic radiation, dumping thousands of tons of Agent Orange defoliant over Indochina during the 1960s, the toxic burn pits of the Iraq war. Civilian leadership in this country needs to shed its adolescent awe of martial exploits and gain firm control over a very dangerous weapon.Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Budget Includes Over $1 Trillion in 'Militarized Spending': Analysis
"If we are ever going to stop the cycle of endless war, we'll have to invest differently."
Mar 12, 2024
U.S. President Joe Biden's new budget proposal calls for more than $1 trillion in military-related spending for the coming fiscal year, according to an analysis released Monday by the National Priorities Project.
That's more than twice as much as the president's proposed discretionary spending on domestic programs related to public health, housing, education, and environmental protection.
The $1.1 trillion in "militarized spending" includes $850 billion for the Pentagon, an agency that recently failed its sixth consecutive audit and can't account for a majority of its roughly $4 trillion in assets. The $850 billion topline is a $9 billion increase over the Pentagon budget that Congress is expected to approve for the current fiscal year.
The president's 2025 request also includes $34 billion in Department of Energy funding for the nation's nuclear stockpile, at least $11.6 billion in international military aid, more than $60 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $113 billion for veterans' programs.
"That's not all the militarism in the budget," noted Lindsay Koshgarian, program director of the National Priorities Project. "In reality, the spending on militarization in this budget is even higher. These figures, which come from the administration, treat the militarization of domestic law enforcement—things like the domestic work of the FBI, federal marshalls, and grants to local law enforcement agencies—as domestic expenses. NPP reports from previous years have found that those expenses added tens of billions more in militarized spending."
The $1.1 trillion also excludes money "for the Pentagon's operations in support of various wars," Koshgarian observed.
"That's highly unrealistic given current administration policies," she wrote. "The administration hasn't been making visible efforts to end the war in Ukraine, nor has it responded to demands that it withhold military aid to Israel in light of war crimes the Israeli government continues to perpetrate there. Without—at the very least—some efforts along those lines, it's not reasonable to assume these extra expenses will just drop to zero next year."
"War hawks squealing that a 1% increase to defense spending is 'meager' or 'catastrophic' lack perspective altogether."
Biden's budget request would push U.S. military spending to record levels, but Republican lawmakers immediately criticized the proposal as inadequate—a signal that they are likely to attempt to pile even more money into the Pentagon's bloated coffers, as they do almost every year.
"War hawks squealing that a 1% increase to defense spending is 'meager' or 'catastrophic' lack perspective altogether," Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "The true catastrophe is the existing scale of U.S. military spending. The Pentagon is a three-quarters-of-a-trillion-dollar agency that has never once passed an audit. It's infamous for waste, fraud, and bankrolling defense corporations. Roughly half of the total Department of Defense budget goes to contractors each year."
"Reallocating billions away from the Pentagon and into direct human needs instead," Gilbert added, "would benefit everyday Americans far more."
The White House drew praise from progressive advocacy groups for proposing a revival of the expanded child tax credit that slashed youth poverty in 2021, among other domestic investments. The program expired at the end of 2021 due to opposition from congressional Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), causing child poverty to surge.
Groups also contrasted Biden's proposal with the fiscal year 2025 resolution passed last week by the Republican-controlled House Budget Committee, which calls for steep cuts to Medicaid, education, infrastructure spending, and more while backing a "fiscal commission" for Social Security and Medicare.
But Koshgarian wrote Monday that Biden's request would still not provide the "security we need, in terms of costs of living, quality of life, climate change, or securing peace." She noted that the White House proposal would boost the Pentagon budget by "more than 10 times that of the Department of Education" and "330 times that of the State Department."
"If we are ever going to stop the cycle of endless war," she argued, "we'll have to invest differently."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular