U.S. Militarism, Corporate Interests and World War III: The Pentagon and CIA: Soldiers of the Corporatocracy

U.S. Militarism, Corporate Interests and World War III

The Pentagon and CIA:

Soldiers of the Corporatocracy

Charles Johnston

Contents

Dedication

Introduction

Chapter 1: U.S. Militarism: History, Costs, Pretexts, Theaters and the Corporate State

History: A More Pacifist Past

Country Military Expenditures in 2013: Billions U.S. Dollars

Geopolitical Realities vs Threats

War is Sell

Casus Belli: A Pretext for War

Major Theaters of Operation

The Cold War 34

Korea 36

Vietnam 37

Grenada 41

Afghanistan 47

Iraq 53

Conspiracy Theory: The Islamic Card and Oil

The Nemesis Threat

Chapter 2: Covert Opposition and Support of Foreign Governments

Changing Governments: Under the Radar

Italy 1948 79

Iran 1953 81

Guatemala 1954 87

Congo 1960 89

Cuba 1961 97

Indonesia 1967 108

Greece 1967 115

Chile 1973 116

Pakistan 1977 120

Afghanistan 1979 127

Paraguay 2012 137

Launching a Coup: The Formula

Economic Destabilization: Creating Anxiety 142

Media/Propaganda: Mind Manipulation 143

Local Military: The Muscle and the Mind Set 144

Religion: God is on Our Side 147

Other Assets 151

Special Operations: Other Clandestine Interventions

Counter-Insurgency: Bolivia 153

Destabilization: Venezuela 160

Nuisances: Tibet 167

Chapter 3: U.S. Interventionism: Summary and Analysis

A Questionable Legal Basis

Corporate Influence in Government

On the Horizon

About the Author

Copyright

Dedication

To grandsons Liam and Axel

Boys, question all authority

Introduction

Despite its many pacifist and non-interventionist supporters and ideologies of the past the United States has evolved into a hyper militaristic state. Since the late 19th Century the U.S. has engaged in an on-going series of foreign interventions. The numbers of major American wars and the many more covert operations are unprecedented in recent history. So too are the human and economic costs. In their frequency, world-wide distribution and often invented purposes U.S. engagements have been a bewildering collection of direct and proxied armed events. Fighting against democrats, despots, godless communists and devote Muslims in the far corners of the world would all seem unrelated actions. In their complex totality they mask the common thread that link all together.

Since 1945, and the end of The Last Good War, numerous academics and other authors have documented the frequency and locations of these engagements; but scholarly publication is not widely read. Major wars get front page coverage but little if any disclosure of real purposes. Behind the scenes there are very many smaller interventions that go largely un-noticed by the public. The U.S. role in coups d’état, proxy wars, minor U.S. military special operations, arms shipments and myriad other interventions are avoided in government commentary, absent in the mass media, below the radar and therefore not subject to public scrutiny.

The thought of war and the horrors it brings are repugnant to mature individuals. Wars must be sold to the public who pay for them with their uniformed sons and daughters and tax dollars, money which could be used for domestic programs or joyfully kept in the pockets of citizens. But selling anything, even war, can be accomplished with the right type of salesmanship. The most successful con-job in recent American history is the cultivated notion that we wage wars for noble purposes.

Operation Just Cause, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the now repetitive references to fighting for freedom and democracy all suggest noble intentions. But beneath the flowery rhetoric are purposes which, if known, would expose more sinister intents and render them less palatable to the American public. However obscure, and with few exceptions, U.S. military and paramilitary engagements protect and preserve corporate interests. They do so with little regard for the peoples directly affected and ignore the potential for retaliatory and possibly catastrophic consequences for the United States and the world. Like militaristic nations of the past the U.S. mistakenly behaves as if power conveys impunity. The threat of nuclear war looms large on the horizon but is seen by few. Our leading intellectuals warn of rampant militarism, domestic political corruption and the international consequences that might follow, but their voices are seldom heard.

This text is, in concise and readable form, a citizens’ primer on U.S. foreign behavior and where it may lead us; an effort to counter government misinformation and media complicity or avoidance. There exists in the United States a secretive and unholy union between the corporate community and government; a hidden alliance which directs foreign policy and is antithetical to representative democracy; a betrayal of what should be government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Chapter 1: U.S. Militarism: History, Costs, Pretexts, Theaters and the Corporate State

History: A More Pacifist Past

The U.S. military and paramilitary apparatus tower over all other national and international institutions. No other has impacted so much of the rest of the world, consumed more wealth and has been so successful in avoiding judicious restraint. But not all Americans have rejoiced in this march to militarism. One of the ironies of American history is that our now hyper militaristic nation was founded by people and leaders who often viewed militarism disdainfully. Pacifist Quakers (Friends) were some of the first to establish lasting settlements in what was to become the United States. These were followed by other religious groups which shared doctrinal opposition to militarism: Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, Church of the Brethren, Baptist Peace Fellowship, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship, Pax Christi (Catholic), Jewish Peace Fellowship, Episcopal Peace Fellowship, United Methodist Church, Shakers and other smaller groups.

The United States has also been birthplace to a number of other anti-war organizations: American Union Against Militarism, American Friends Service Committee (Nobel Laureate – peace), Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and more. In addition to American institutional opposition to war there have also been objections to military engagements among some of our most prominent political leaders in the past. Thomas Paine, George Washington and John Adams were proponents of non-interventionism. So too was President Woodrow Wilson. Prominent among the many other Americans who opposed war: Henry David Thoreau, Dr. Albert Einstein (Nobel Laureate – physics), Dr. Martin Luther King (Nobel Laureate – peace), Dr. John Dewey, Upton Sinclair, Dr. Benjamin Spock, Dr. Linus Pauling (twice Nobel Laureate – chemistry and peace), Jane Addams (Nobel Laureate – peace) and many others. Other leaders have similarly been wary of the influence of militarism on American society.

As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

President Abraham Lincoln

A letter to Col. William F. Elkins

November 21, 1864

The Lincoln Encyclopedia

Despite earlier resistance to militarism the United States is now recognized as a militaristic state, one which surpasses all others in power and global influence. Our opposition to foreign entanglements effectively ended with the Spanish-American War in 1898. Disapproval resurfaced in World War I and was not seen again as a prominent force until the Vietnam War. Despite a substantial early base for resistance against armed aggression our military behavior has almost become one of the defining features of our nation. In 2014 the Congressional Research Service identified 185 instances in which the United States deployed military personnel abroad between 1945 and 2014 (source: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2014, Barbara Salazar Torreon , Congressional Research Service, Division of Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade, CRS). Covert operations and the distribution of arms to foreign countries are not included.

Not all of these resulted in armed conflict. Nonetheless, they have been unprecedented in number and breadth across the continents of Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Many of these were significant engagements with more than 30 countries receiving air strikes. Another study reveals that the number of military interventions has been increasing decade to decade; 1945-49: 5, 1950s: 6, 1960s: 8, 1970s: 11, 1980s: 22, 1990s: 66 and 2000-2006: 44 (source: Unwarranted Influence: Chronicling the Rise of US Government Dependence on Conflict, Brian Bogart, Peace Studies; University of Oregon, September, 2007).

Costs: At Home and Abroad

The costs of U.S. war and defense activities are correspondingly without precedent. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute annually lists the military expenditures of most countries. It also specifies the level of spending as a percentage of each country’s GDP and world share.

Country Military Expenditures in 2013: Billions U.S. Dollars

Military Expenditure Database – 2013

Stockholm International

Peace Research Institute

Stockholm, Sweden

In 2013 the base budget of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) totaled $664 billion, slightly more than the total expenditures of the next nine countries. With a population of 310 million the cost per U.S. resident is $2,142 per year. However, to determine the total cost of all military, paramilitary and related defense operations additional expenses must be added. Some of these are classified and can only be estimated.

In 2011 these expenditures and estimates included: the interest paid on that portion of the national debt incurred by previous deficit military spending - variously estimated between 23 percent and 91 percent of all interest paid - or $114.8 to $454.2 billion, Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion, veteran’s pensions $58.4 billion, Homeland Security $54.7 billion, foreign arms distribution $10.1 to $54.2 billion, Department of Energy (ICBM installations and development) $20.9 billion, NASA satellites and weaponry $3.4 to $8.5 billion, other undefined military related spending $7.5 billion and FBI counter terrorism $2.7 billion. Moreover these expenditures are increasing rapidly. The Congressional Budget Office reports that between 2000 and 2009 Department of Defense spending grew at an annualized rate of nine percent.

In all, these annual expenses total between $1.003 and $1.391 trillion. The latter figure is equal to 9.0 percent of the $15.4 trillion GDP in 2011 – the value of all goods and services produced in the United States in that year. But these figures too understate total costs. For most of its existence the complete budget of the CIA, the world’s largest paramilitary organization, has been classified.

Moreover, the very costly wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and more recently Syria have been largely funded through supplementary spending bills, varying from year to year, and are outside the base budget of the DOD. During the course of these conflicts additional supplements have been estimated at $743.1 billion to the Pentagon and $103.5 billion in war related international assistance (source: Costs of War, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, 2011). Money is borrowed to finance these conflicts; future interest payments on the additional debt incurred are estimated at $7 trillion. The same study estimates the human costs: 350,000 killed directly as a result of armed violence, many more through indirect causes, 365,000 wounded and 7.8 million displaced. Much of total military costs are accrued in maintaining 716 overseas bases (source: Base Structure Report, Fiscal Year 2009 Baseline, U.S. Department of Defense).

The actual total costs of the DOD are elusive for other reasons. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that, over years, it could not conduct a proper federal audit because of serious financial management problems at the DOD that made its financial statements unauditable (source: Significant Financial Management and Fiscal Challenges Reflected in U.S. Governments 2012 Financial Report, January 17, 2013, GAO). Whatever the actual total military expenditure, it is not used for domestic programs.

Geopolitical Realities vs Threats

These very high levels of expenditure cannot be justified by actual threats. There are no real or potential conflicts proportional to what the U.S. spends. From a military perspective the location of the United States is the most defensible position in the world. The nations we border, Canada and Mexico, offer no potential threats to the U.S. Even without the deterrence effect of our formidable stockpile of nuclear weapons our northern and southern neighbors lack both the will and the means to pose any serious challenge to American sovereignty. And what would they gain that they do not already have?

Canada, which the U.S. has shared thousands of miles of unguarded border, has a population which is only 11 percent of its southern neighbor. More importantly its military muscle and budget are miniscule compared to that of the U.S. – just 2.3 percent. It would have no economic incentive to take control of American resources when it has a super abundance of its own. It also has a very high standard of living. The Human Development Index, published annually by the United Nations, ranks the world’s most livable countries; recently Canada has been rated number one (Vancouver is considered the most livable city), and it annually scores higher on the Index than the U.S. Canadians are better educated, live almost three years longer, have a much less assertive temperament and would have no reason to invade the country which is already their best trading partner.

If Canada invaded the U.S. it would have nothing to gain that it does not already have, but much to lose. As a responsible nation which is much closer to achieving social well-being and harmony, it would not want to assume the task of dealing with our higher crime rate, national debt, poverty, health care costs, the prospect of economic insolvency and other social ills. From a Canadian perspective gaining control of the United States would be a liability. They would much prefer that we deal with our problems ourselves – and leave them alone. Resource rich and socially comfortable Canadians would have little incentive to add the U.S. to their existing territory – climate notwithstanding.

Mexico too lacks the will and resources to successfully invade the United States. South of the border our higher standard of living may be viewed enviously but there is no reason to mount a frontal military assault, doomed to failure, when millions of their poor have already entered the U.S. and continue to do so. Launch a military assault on the United States? Not when their peaceful, inexpensive and relatively unimpeded pedestrian invasion over their northern border has been a resounding success.

There’s another possibility but very remote - an amphibious assault on U.S. shores by an overseas adversary. No small chore. The distances across our western and eastern oceans are our greatest defense against any other potential foreign invader. The successful launch of a large scale oceanic attack on the U.S., across thousands of miles of open sea - in full view of our satellites - and the subjugation of 310 million people – many with private weapons¹ - would require an undertaking of unprecedented scale, numbers and complexity.

How many troops and units of equipment would need to be transported and supplied from distant shores in an assault on the United States? Operation Barbarossa, the Axis attack on the Soviet Union in WWII, provides an understated idea of what would be required. At the beginning the Wehrmacht and other Axis forces amassed 4,306,851 personnel, 42,601 artillery guns and mortars, 4,171 tanks, 4,389 aircraft, an estimated 600,000 motorized vehicles and 750,000 horses – in all, 166 divisions on the Soviet border (source: Table 47, Stalin’s Missed Chance: The Soviet Union and Struggle for Europe 1939-1941, Mikhail Meltyukhov, Moscow, Veche, 2002). It became the largest military assault in history. In this effort the Germans and other Axis forces had the advantage of deploying and supplying their troops over land, not thousands of miles of open ocean. However impressive in scale the Nazi invasion failed with 85 percent of all Axis casualties occurring on the Eastern Front, distance and the Russian winter being two of their most formidable and decisive adversaries.

In Operation Overlord the D-Day landings on the beaches of Normandy were a success. A total of 6,939 vessels were involved in the effort. Many were smaller boats capable of crossing the narrow channel between England and the French coast. Air support from thousands of planes and the dropping of airborne divisions behind enemy lines were also facilitated by the proximity of air bases in the United Kingdom to Normandy. The operation, however small in comparison to what would be needed to launch a maritime invasion of the United States, could not have succeeded across thousands of miles of ocean.

Barbarossa and Overlord would have been minor skirmishes compared with the requirements of an assault on the United States. The U.S. is the third most populous country in the world with 310,000,000 residents. It has an estimated 60,388,734 men, ages 16-49, who are Manpower fit for military service (source: CIA World Fact Book). The United States has 90 civilian firearms per 100 residents, by far the highest rate of gun ownership in the world (source: Small Arms Survey 2007, Aaron Karp, Geneva Graduate Institute of International Studies). Our domestic military forces and civilian conscripts could be readily deployed anywhere in the country through a dense and integrated transport system linking road, rail,