Connections between US economic and military policy, domestically and globally

[bigbadwolf]

Interesting essay by Peter Dale Scott at globalresearch.ca:

The financial bailout legislation of September 2008 was only passed after members of both Congressional houses were warned that failure to act would threaten civil unrest and the imposition of martial law.

... So it is clear that threats of martial law were used to get this reprehensible bailout legislation passed. It also seems clear that Congress was told of a threat of martial law, not itself threatened. It is still entirely appropriate to link such talk to the Army's rapid moves to redefine its role as one of controlling the American people, not just protecting them. In a constitutional polity based on balance of powers, we see the emergence of a radical new military power that is as yet completely unbalanced.

... This announcement followed by two weeks the talk of civil unrest and martial law that was used to panic the Congress into passing Paulson's bailout legislation. Not only that, the two unprecedented events mirror each other: the bailout debate anticipated civil unrest and martial law, while the announced positioning of an active Brigade Combat Team on U.S. soil anticipated civil unrest (such as might result from the bailout legislation).

... "Widespread civil violence inside the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region> would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," said the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">War</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">College</st1:placetype></st1:place> report.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>
The study says economic collapse, terrorism and loss of legal order are among possible domestic shocks that might require military action within the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.

and another thread of ideas here:

</st1:country-region></st1:place>

... In the same way, the long drawn-out housing bubble of the current Bush decade, and particularly the derivative bubble that was floated upon it, allowed the Bush administration to help offset the trillion-dollar-plus cost of its Iraq misadventure, by creating spurious securities that sold for hundreds of billions, not just in the United States, but through the rest of the world. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>
In the long run, this was not a sustainable source of wealth for <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place>'s financial class, which is now suffering like everyone else from the consequent recession. But in the short run, the financial crisis and bailout made it possible for Bush to wage a costly war without experiencing the kind of debilitating inflation that was brought on by <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s Vietnam War.

The writer finds connections between US international military policy, global financial policy, and increased economic polarisation domestically (with a concomitant greater threat of martial law domestically). In a nutshell, the plutocratic US military-industrial state has its own dynamic which is playing out both domestically and globally -- and we have to see that the domestic is just one aspect of the global. This is interesting because while internationally the US has been feared as a hegemonic military power, domestically it has masqueraded itself to its people as a benevolent democracy ("the iron hand in the velvet glove"). This decades-old tension between domestic charade and brutal global reality may be coming to an end as domestic US policy and actions start to mirror its policies and actions internationally. Another way of saying this is that a plutocratic and polarised state cannot even afford the sham outward trappings of democracy and civil society.







<o:p></o:p>

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

That's just silly. That said, politicians will say anything to get their way. That's old news.