Sunday, September 26, 2021

THE EMPIRE’S LAST STAND


By Patrick Lawrence,
Consortium News.

September 22, 2021


https://popularresistance.org/the-empires-last-stand/



The origins of the first Cold War have been hopelessly blurred in the histories.

We can watch this time. It is occurring before our eyes.

In the early months of 1947, President Harry Truman and Dean Acheson, his secretary of state, made up their minds to prop up Greece’s openly fascist monarchy against a popular revolt they had cast as a Soviet threat. After much hand-wringing, Truman went to Congress on March 12 to ask for $400 million in aid, not quite $5 billion today when adjusted for inflation.

Truman and Acheson knew the Greek intervention would be a hard sell: Congress was in no mood to spend that kind of money, and the war-weary public harbored hope for FDR’s vision of a postwar order built on the principle of peaceful coexistence. As the speech went through its multiple drafts, Arthur Vandenberg, Republican senator from Michigan and a presence in the planning of America’s postwar posture, offered advice that must be counted elegantly forthright, if diabolic in its cynicism.

It comes down to us today, and for good reason. “Mr. President,” Vandenberg said during White House deliberations, “the only way you are ever going to get this is to make a speech and scare hell out of the American people.”

Truman made his since-famous “scare hell” speech. The Greeks got their $400 million (a remarkable proportion of which was embezzled by government ministers), and the American public was kept scared for the next 40–odd years — the Cold War years.
When It Started

There are various thoughts as to when the Cold War started. Some scholars argue it began as early as the Yalta Conference in early 1945, when Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt told Joseph Stalin there would be no Allied support for the reconstruction of the Soviet Union, which had sacrificed 20 million to 27 million lives to defeat the Germans — a victory that left the Soviet economy in ruins.

My date is March 12, 1947, when Truman delivered his address to a joint session of Congress. And it is remarkable how faithfully the intervention in Greece, the first of Washington’s major Cold War undertakings, has been reproduced during all the decades since. A year later the U.S. (with Britain’s assist) corrupted Italy’s first postwar general elections. Then came the coup in Iran, then the coup in Guatemala, and so on without interruption until our time.

Last Wednesday President Joe Biden announced a new trilateral security agreement with Britain and Australia. Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison, respectively the British and Australian prime ministers, joined him electronically from London and Canberra. Biden couldn’t remember Morrison’s name — “that fella down under” is as far as he got — but let us not allow the shocking incompetence of the man driving our bus to distract us from the gravity of the moment.

There are numerous things to say about the new accord, by which the U.S. and Britain are to provide Australia with the sensitive technology needed to build a fleet of eight or more nuclear-powered submarines. But before we get to anything else, get used to Roman numerals: Last Wednesday was a three-sided declaration that Cold War II is now our new, flesh-and-blood, steel-and-bombs, propaganda-and-paranoia reality.

The Ides of September: Remember the date. Sept. 15, 2021, is our March 12, 1947. Xi Jinping’s People’s Republic is in 2021 what Stalin’s Soviet Union was three-quarters of a century ago. Truman and Acheson changed the world when they drafted the full-of-lies “scare hell” speech — greatly for the worse, of course. Biden, Johnson and Morrison just did the same. It would be hard to overstate the dangers and burdens Cold War II is going to inflict upon us — we Americans, we the rest of the human population.

Remember this, too, and bear witness. It is the U.S. that has assiduously sought to kindle Cold War II, just as it, and not the Soviet Union, was responsible for starting Cold War I. I mention this because the origins of the first Cold War have been hopelessly blurred in the histories. We can watch this time. It is occurring before our eyes.

There had been talk of a new Cold War at least since the U.S. recklessly, stupidly sponsored the coup in Ukraine in February 2014 and the monstrously paranoid Russophobia our authoritarian liberal friends began cultivating two years later. But we seem to have had our oceans and continents mixed up. Hardly are the policy cliques (and their clerks in the press) going to now encourage Americans to see Russia simply as it is. No chance. But it is China and the Chinese that they are now going to distort to the point whether neither is recognizable.

What does this bode for all of us? What will life be like as Cold War II is waged? I shudder to pose these questions, having lived through all of Cold War I, but for the first few years of it. Take my word for it, those too young to share the memories: This ain’t going to be no kind of fun.

What happened last week is worth thinking about for those details so far available to us. David Sanger, who is far too intimate with the national security state for our good if not his own, reported in The New York Times Saturday that the Americans, Brits and Aussies had been secretly negotiating their new accord for months while keeping the French in the dark. France had a longstanding contract, worth $60 billion in today’s money, to supply Australia with a dozen diesel-electric submarines.

With that contract now broken, the French are irate — properly, I would say. No tears to shed for France’s Naval Group, which won’t get to build a fleet of vessels with which Australia can indulge its animosities toward the Chinese simply for being Chinese and being a large country on the Pacific’s western rim. But there is the potential for something good to come of French President Emmanuel Macron’s heat-of-the-moment decision to recall his ambassadors in Canberra and Washington.
Contours of Cold War II

There is a lot more to this turn of events, surely, that will remain submerged such that we will never see it. But we nonetheless have in outline the contours of Cold War II and can begin to reckon what it will look like and what those waging it will inflict upon us.

To begin with, the core of the Anglosphere — Canada and New Zealand apparently sidelined for the time being — will be the tip of the West’s spear as Cold War II is waged. This is important to note for a couple of reasons.

If the U.S., Britain and Australia share one thing above all others in their ideology and the common world view that arises from it, it is an unremitting hawkishness toward those nations who dare to resist the conformity neoliberalism demands. Cold War II will be harshly and aggressively fought, we can expect.

In addition, and not to be missed, there is the implied division of labor.

The U.S. has been spoiling to escalate tensions with China at least since Mike Pompeo’s tenure as secretary of state. The dim-witted Pompeo — Antony Blinken without the fluent French and the “deep concern” — was out of the closet altogether in urging some kind of Gog and Magog confrontation with our newest “evil empire.”

In March 2020, Congress asked the Pentagon to ask it for a lot of extra money to spend in the Pacific. The generals and admirals did and got a little more than $20 billion as a down payment on a six-year expansion of their operations in East Asia. In July the U.S. got the Federated States of Micronesia — by some combination of coercion and bribery if history is any guide — to let the Navy build a forward base on FSM soil. This is the shape of things to come.

But the imperium grows weaker. The imperium wheezes. We can, therefore, expect Australia and Britain to carry a lot more weight in Cold War II than America’s allies shouldered during the Cold War I decades. This is why all sides thought it was worth it to risk a serious breach with France at this moment. Nuclear-powered submarines have many times the speed and stealth of conventional vessels — handy for patrolling the South China Sea and the coastal waters of the mainland. Handy for escalating tensions, in other words.

There is an obvious cultural affinity among these three allies. We can read a unified determination and purpose into this.

Cold War I, from its middle decades onward, was colored by the subtle but increasingly detectable reluctance of non–Anglo members of the alliance to stay the course. Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO by degrees from 1963 to 1966. Three years later the Germans were going on about Ostpolitik. A year after that Willy Brandt, the Social Democratic chancellor, a pinko through and through, met with East Germany’s leader, the first such encounter between East and West.

No worries, as the Australians say, about flaky peaceniks given to “convergence” this time. The cheese-eating surrender monkeys can stay at home while we share our Freedom Fries with people who can speak English, for heaven’s sake. This implies something very big about Cold War II.

Blinken and Nod never miss a chance to take a running whack at the Russians, and there is no reason to think they will desist now that their attention is fully turned to China.

There have nonetheless been signs that the Biden administration, whoever may be running it, is losing interest in the Russian menace theme. Biden recently caved on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. He more recently palmed off Volodymyr Zelensky when the Ukrainian leader came asking for the U.S. to back its campaign to join NATO. All for it, Nod replied in so many words. Can’t imagine when, though. Now we love ya but g’won, get outta here.

It is said that Emmanuel Macron, core Europe’s most outspoken advocate for greater autonomy and independence from the U.S., is now going to run many miles with last week’s contractual breach and diplomatic betrayal. This may be so. And I hope it is.

Go for it, Manny.
The Other Half of the Story

But that’s only half the story, in my read. It looks to me as if the U.S. may now be willing to cut the Continent loose. Just as there was reluctance during Cold War I to continue on with the East–West binary, the incessant anti­–Sov noise and the frightening brinkmanship, the Europeans now — the French, the Germans, the Italians, each in their way — are ambivalent at the very least to sign on for a long run of the same with China.

We have, then, the promise — and let us count it a positive prospect — of true progress toward a more independent Europe, which would do Europeans and the rest of us a power of good. At the same time, we have a hard core of hawks who will wage Cold War II with no mitigating, reasonable voice among them. I count this a source of heightened danger. Neither of Washington’s allies in this new tripartite deal displays any givenness to applying the brakes as the American imperium proceeds on its desperate way.

The Australians have been unembarrassed vassals since its governor-general collaborated with the CIA and Buckingham Palace to depose the right-thinking Gough Whitlam as prime minister in 1975. On the China question they lost their minds some while back, shooting themselves in the foot in the name of sheer denial every chance they get.

As to the Brits, PM Johnson seems to entertain some fantasy of “Global Britain,” with its very own pivot to Asia. Like the Aussies, this is simply a dressed-up way of confirming the U.K. will continue holding onto America’s coattails.

No wonder Jean–Yves Le Drian had such wonderfully honest words for perfidious Albion when he explained the other day why Paris hasn’t recalled its ambassador to the Court of St. James. “Britain is a minion not worth our attention,” the French foreign minister said. “Recalling our ambassador to London was not necessary because we already know that the British government is in a logic of permanent opportunism.”

There are times when even those who don’t like the French have to like the French.

The submarines and carrier groups, the extravagantly equipped bases, the bombers and the endless joint exercises associated with Cold War II will come at a heavy cost at home. Our schools will continue to fall apart along with our roads, bridges and transportation networks. There will be no proper health care system. Corporate exploitation will worsen and the liberals among us will insist all will be well tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Propaganda will all but smother us. All this is already evident. But the fight for relief just got tougher.

Those able to recall Cold War I will understand that there is also a great psychological cost to waging these imperial campaigns. This saddens me as much as anything else. Cold War II, like the first, is likely to warp American minds in the same way. It will render an inability to see the world as it is, it will narrow the intellectual range, everything will be Manichean once again. It will render Americans lonely strangers among others.

These are not lethal consequences in the way a war with China, which just got a lot more real, would be lethal. But Cold War II will kill our spirits, or nearly, until enough people are prepared to shake off the torpor, stand up, and say, “No more.”

In this connection I venture a prediction. When enough people begin to resist the madness and we begin to get somewhere, Cold War II will turn out to be the American empire’s last stand.




LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN LEADERS APPROVE HISTORIC AGREEMENT





By
Peoples Dispatch.

September 22, 2021

https://popularresistance.org/latin-american-and-caribbean-leaders-approve-historic-agreement/



The heads of state of the regional block agreed on a 44-point declaration which addressed the strategy against COVID-19 and climate change and took a stand against the blockade on Cuba.

The VI Summit of the Heads of State of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) was held in Mexico City on Saturday, September 18 and concluded with the approval of a 44-point declaration. The historic summit saw the participation of 31 countries and the presence of several important leaders, such as Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, Bolivian president Luis Arce, Peruvian president Pedro Castillo, Cuban president Miguel Díaz Canel, Uruguayan president Luis Lacalle Pou and others.

Despite the political differences among the participants, the joint declaration was approved unanimously and addressed key issues of political sovereignty. It called for an end to all unilateral coercive measures like the ones suffered by Cuba and Venezuela, supported Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, and supported regional strategies to address the public health crisis, and many others.

The resolution also condemned the international community’s lack of will to end vaccine apartheid and ensure that all countries across the world have the necessary tools to confront and contain the COVID-19 pandemic. It also highlighted the importance of the Cuban vaccines.

The summit was met with widespread enthusiasm for being able to bring together diverse political actors across the region and uniting them. Also of note was the fact that the summit was held in Mexico. Following the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the country has taken great strides in helping forge greater cooperation among countries of the region. Over the past month, Mexico has hosted the groundbreaking talks between the Venezuelan government and opposition forces.

Many of the leaders spoke on the importance of the summit and CELAC itself, and called for it to be strengthened.

Miguel Díaz Canel said “The founding of CELAC [in 2010] highlighted more than two centuries of struggles and hope; and constituted an important moment for the history of Our America. Fidel qualified it as the most transcendent institutional moment of the hemisphere in the century.”

He added, “One decade later, we continue to build and consolidate it, with the objective of recovering from the devastating effects of a pandemic that has exacerbated the multidimensional crisis that already affected the world, reduce the enormous gaps that makes us the most unequal on the planet, and advance the well being of our people.”

The Mexican foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard, in a press conference, said the region is in a new moment as “a year and a half ago we did not speak, and now we are seeing how to be self sufficient in vaccine production, it is a huge change.”
The declaration

As previously mentioned, the 44-point declaration has important agreements on pressing issues that are facing the region. Several immediate actions were approved including the creation of a fund to address the impacts of climate change, calls for the creation of infrastructure to produce and distribute medical supplies and vaccines, especially the Cuban-produced ones, to help countries face the COVID-19 pandemic.

An agreement was also made to bring a common position to the United Nations’ COP26 Conference in Glasgow, and the need for support in taking measures to cut emissions and prevent climate change, but also in recovery from the impact of climate change. The region has been one of the most hard hit with droughts, tropical storms and hurricanes, and other natural disasters which have caused mass displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and loss of human life.

The Mexican foreign minister said in the press conference “we are content because Latin America and the Caribbean approved something unanimously,” he added that “we are going to work together so that we do not get behind, so that we have technology and we can improve our possibilities of well being.”




How Corporations Won the War on Terror



https://consortiumnews.com/2021/09/23/how-corporations-won-the-war-on-terror/


September 23, 2021


Failed wars and thousands of lives lost are good for (some) business, writes William Hartung.


By William Hartung
TomDispatch


The costs and consequences of America’s twenty-first-century wars have by now been well-documented — a staggering $8 trillion in expenditures and more than 380,000 civilian deaths, as calculated by Brown University’s Costs of War project. The question of who has benefited most from such an orgy of military spending has, unfortunately, received far less attention.

Corporations large and small have left the financial feast of that post-9/11 surge in military spending with genuinely staggering sums in hand. After all, Pentagon spending has totaled an almost unimaginable $14 trillion-plus since the start of the Afghan War in 2001, up to one-half of which (catch a breath here) went directly to defense contractors.

‘The Purse is Now Open’

The political climate created by the Global War on Terror, or GWOT, as Bush administration officials quickly dubbed it, set the stage for humongous increases in the Pentagon budget. In the first year after the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Afghanistan, defense spending rose by more than 10% and that was just the beginning. It would, in fact, increase annually for the next decade, which was unprecedented in American history.

The Pentagon budget peaked in 2010 at the highest level since World War II — over $800 billion, substantially more than the country spent on its forces at the height of the Korean or Vietnam Wars or during President Ronald Reagan’s vaunted military buildup of the 1980s.

And in the new political climate sparked by the reaction to the 9/11 attacks, those increases reached well beyond expenditures specifically tied to fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Harry Stonecipher, then vice president of Boeing, told the The Wall Street Journal in an October 2001 interview, “The purse is now open… [A]ny member of Congress who doesn’t vote for the funds we need to defend this country will be looking for a new job after next November.”

Stonecipher’s prophesy of rapidly rising Pentagon budgets proved correct. And it’s never ended. The Biden administration is anything but an exception. Its latest proposal for spending on the Pentagon and related defense work like nuclear warhead development at the Department of Energy topped $753 billion for FY2022. And not to be outdone, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have already voted to add roughly $24 billion to that staggering sum.

Who Benefitted?

Boeing’s B-52F dropping bombs on Vietnam, sometime during the 1960s. (U.S. Air Force/Wikimedia Commons)

The benefits of the post-9/11 surge in Pentagon spending have been distributed in a highly concentrated fashion. More than one-third of all contracts now go to just five major weapons companies — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. Those five received more than $166 billion in such contracts in fiscal year 2020 alone.

To put such a figure in perspective, the $75 billion in Pentagon contracts awarded to Lockheed Martin that year was significantly more than one and one-half times the entire 2020 budget for the State Department and the Agency for International Development, which together totaled $44 billion.

While it’s true that the biggest financial beneficiaries of the post-9/11 military spending surge were those five weapons contractors, they were anything but the only ones to cash in. Companies benefiting from the buildup of the past 20 years also included logistics and construction firms like Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) and Bechtel, as well as armed private security contractors like Blackwater and Dyncorp.

The Congressional Research Service estimates that in FY2020 the spending for contractors of all kinds had grown to $420 billion, or well over half of the total Pentagon budget. Companies in all three categories noted above took advantage of “wartime” conditions — in which both speed of delivery and less rigorous oversight came to be considered the norms — to overcharge the government or even engage in outright fraud.

The best-known reconstruction and logistics contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan was Halliburton, through its KBR subsidiary. At the start of both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Halliburton was the recipient of the Pentagon’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contracts.

Those open-ended arrangements involved coordinating support functions for troops in the field, including setting up military bases, maintaining equipment, and providing food and laundry services. By 2008, the company had received more than $30 billion for such work.

Halliburton’s role would prove controversial indeed, reeking as it did of self-dealing and blatant corruption. The notion of privatizing military-support services was first initiated in the early 1990s by Dick Cheney when he was secretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration and Halliburton got the contract to figure out how to do it.

I suspect you won’t be surprised to learn that Cheney then went on to serve as the CEO of Halliburton until he became vice president under George W. Bush in 2001. His journey was a (if not the) classic case of that revolving door between the Pentagon and the defense industry, now used by so many government officials and generals or admirals, with all the obvious conflicts-of-interest it entails.

Once it secured its billions for work in Iraq, Halliburton proceeded to vastly overcharge the Pentagon for basic services, even while doing shoddy work that put U.S. troops at risk — and it would prove to be anything but alone in such activities.

Sign at the entrance to Halliburton’s North Belt Campus at 3000 North Sam Houston Parkway E, Houston, TX, which contains its corporate headquarters. (0x0077BE/Wikimedia Commons)

Starting in 2004, a year into the Iraq War, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a congressionally mandated body designed to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, along with Congressional watchdogs like Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), exposed scores of examples of overcharging, faulty construction, and outright theft by contractors engaged in the “rebuilding” of that country.

Again, you undoubtedly won’t be surprised to find out that relatively few companies suffered significant financial or criminal consequences for what can only be described as striking war profiteering. The congressional Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated that, as of 2011, waste, fraud, and abuse in the two war zones had already totaled $31 billion to $60 billion.

A case in point was the International Oil Trading Company, which received contracts worth $2.7 billion from the Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency to provide fuel for U.S. operations in Iraq. An investigation by Waxman, chair of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, found that the firm had routinely overcharged the Pentagon for the fuel it shipped into Iraq, making more than $200 million in profits on oil sales of $1.4 billion during the period from 2004 to 2008.

More than a third of those funds went to its owner, Harry Sargeant III, who also served as the finance chairman of the Florida Republican Party. Waxman summarized the situation this way: “The documents show that Mr. Sargeant’s company took advantage of U.S. taxpayers. His company had the only license to transport fuel through Jordan, so he could get away with charging exorbitant prices. I’ve never seen another situation like this.”

Waxman. (Bridgette Blair/Public Citizen/Flickr)

A particularly egregious case of shoddy work with tragic human consequences involved the electrocution of at least 18 military personnel at several bases in Iraq from 2004 on. This happened thanks to faulty electrical installations, some done by KBR and its subcontractors.

An investigation by the Pentagon’s Inspector General found that commanders in the field had “failed to ensure that renovations… had been properly done, the Army did not set standards for jobs or contractors, and KBR did not ground electrical equipment it installed at the facility.”

The Afghan “reconstruction” process was similarly replete with examples of fraud, waste, and abuse. These included a U.S.-appointed economic task force that spent $43 million constructing a gas station essentially in the middle of nowhere that would never be used, another $150 million on lavish living quarters for U.S. economic advisors, and $3 million for Afghan police patrol boats that would prove similarly useless.

Perhaps most disturbingly, a congressional investigation found that a significant portion of $2 billion worth of transportation contracts issued to U.S. and Afghan firms ended up as kickbacks to warlords and police officials or as payments to the Taliban to allow large convoys of trucks to pass through areas they controlled, sometimes as much as $1,500 per truck, or up to half a million dollars for each 300-truck convoy.

In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that “one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money” paid from just such transportation contracts.

A Two-Decade Explosion of Corporate Profits

A second stream of revenue for corporations tied to those wars went to private security contractors, some of which guarded U.S. facilities or critical infrastructure like Iraqi oil pipelines.

The most notorious of them was, of course, Blackwater, a number of whose employees were involved in a 2007 massacre of 17 Iraqis in Baghdad’s Nisour Square. They opened fire on civilians at a crowded intersection while guarding a U.S. Embassy convoy. The attack prompted ongoing legal and civil cases that continued into the Trump era, when several perpetrators of the massacre were pardoned by the president.

In the wake of those killings, Blackwater was rebranded several times, first as XE Services and then as Academii, before eventually merging with Triple Canopy, another private contracting firm.

Blackwater founder Erik Prince then separated from the company, but he has since recruited private mercenaries on behalf of the United Arab Emirates for deployment to the civil war in Libya in violation of a United Nations arms embargo. Prince also unsuccessfully proposed to the Trump administration that he recruit a force of private contractors meant to be the backbone of the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan.

Another task taken up by private firms Titan and CACI International was the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. Both companies had interrogators and translators on the ground at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, a site where such prisoners were brutally tortured.

Nov. 7, 2003. CPL GRANER and SPC HARMAN pose for picture behind the nude detainees. SOLDIER(S): CPL GRANER and SPC HARMAN. All caption information is taken directly from CID materials. U.S. Army / Criminal Investigation Command (CID). Seized by the U.S. Government. (Wikimedia Commons)

The number of personnel deployed and the revenues received by security and reconstruction contractors grew dramatically as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wore on. The Congressional Research Service estimated that by March 2011 there were more contractor employees in Iraq and Afghanistan (155,000) than American uniformed military personnel (145,000).

In its August 2011 final report, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan put the figure even higher, stating that “contractors represent more than half of the U.S. presence in the contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, at times employing more than a quarter-million people.”

While an armed contractor who had served in the Marines could earn as much as $200,000 annually in Iraq, about three-quarters of the contractor work force there was made up of people from countries like Nepal or the Philippines, or Iraqi citizens. Poorly paid, at times they received as little as $3,000 per year.

A 2017 analysis by the Costs of War project documented “abysmal labor conditions” and major human rights abuses inflicted on foreign nationals working on U.S.-funded projects in Afghanistan, including false imprisonment, theft of wages, and deaths and injuries in areas of conflict.

With the U.S. military in Iraq reduced to a relatively modest number of armed “advisors” and no American forces left in Afghanistan, such contractors are now seeking foreign clients. For example, a U.S. firm — Tier 1 Group, which was founded by a former employee of Blackwater — trained four of the Saudi operatives involved in the murder of Saudi journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi, an effort funded by the Saudi government.

As the The New York Times noted when it broke that story, “Such issues are likely to continue as American private military contractors increasingly look to foreign clients to shore up their business as the United States scales back overseas deployments after two decades of war.”

Add in one more factor to the two-decade “war on terror” explosion of corporate profits. Overseas arms sales also rose sharply in this era. The biggest and most controversial market for U.S. weaponry in recent years has been the Middle East, particularly sales to countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have been involved in a devastating war in Yemen, as well as fueling conflicts elsewhere in the region.

Donald Trump made the most noise about Middle East arms sales and their benefits to the U.S. economy. However, the giant weapons-producing corporations actually sold more weaponry to Saudi Arabia, on average, during the Obama administration, including three major offers in 2010 that totaled more than $60 billion for combat aircraft, attack helicopters, armored vehicles, bombs, missiles, and guns — virtually an entire arsenal.

Many of those systems were used by the Saudis in their intervention in Yemen, which has involved the killing of thousands of civilians in indiscriminate air strikes and the imposition of a blockade that has contributed substantially to the deaths of nearly a quarter of a million people to date.

Forever War Profiteering?

Reining in the excess profits of weapons contractors and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse by private firms involved in supporting U.S. military operations will ultimately require reduced spending on war and on preparations for war. So far, unfortunately, Pentagon budgets only continue to rise and yet more money flows to the big five weapons firms.

To alter this remarkably unvarying pattern, a new strategy is needed, one that increases the role of American diplomacy, while focusing on emerging and persistent non-military security challenges. “National security” needs to be redefined not in terms of a new “cold war” with China, but to forefront crucial issues like pandemics and climate change.

It’s time to put a halt to the direct and indirect foreign military interventions the United States has carried out in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and so many other places in this century. Otherwise, we’re in for decades of more war profiteering by weapons contractors reaping massive profits with impunity.





'This Is Big': House Passes Amendment to Cut US Complicity in Saudi Bombing of Yemen





https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/23/big-house-passes-amendment-cut-us-complicity-saudi-bombing-yemen



The vote, said Rep. Ro Khanna, "sent a clear message to the Saudis: end the bombing in Yemen and lift the blockade."



ANDREA GERMANOS
September 23, 2021


Anti-war groups on Thursday welcomed the U.S. House's passage of an amendment to the annual defense bill that would cut off the flow to Saudi Arabia of U.S. logistical support and weapons "that are bombing civilians" in Yemen.

"This is BIG," tweeted the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) following the afternoon 219-207 vote, which fell largely along party lines, with just 11 Democrats voting "no."


At issue was Rep. Ro Khanna's (D-Calif.) amendment to H.R. 4350, the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It's one of dozens of amendments to the NDAA under consideration by the House this week.

According to Khanna, the vote "sent a clear message to the Saudis: end the bombing in Yemen and lift the blockade."

Speaking on the House floor Wednesday, he made a succinct case for why the measure is so needed.

Khanna said his amendment "would end all U.S. logistical support and transfer of spare parts for Saudi warplanes that are bombing Yemen, that are bombing schools, that are killing children, that are bombing civilians in the largest humanitarian crisis around the world."


"We're not going to use taxpayer dollars to give them equipment for their planes to bomb Yemeni kids," Khanna added, urging his colleagues to help "finally begin to end this war."

The California Democrat's effort is being buoyed by anti-war groups like FCNL, which joined a coalition of progressive groups this week in a statement declaring that "by suspending the sale of arms and ending U.S. participation in the Saudi coalition's war and blockade, Congress can prevent a humanitarian catastrophe from spiraling further out of control as it reasserts its constitutional authority on matters of war and peace."

Another signatory to the letter, CodePink, argued Thursday that while the House vote was welcome, the NDAA still needs broader changes.

"If this amendment makes it through the NDAA conference with the Senate," the group wrote in a Twitter thread, "it would end logistical and spare parts support to the Saudi-led war on Yemen that's left hundreds of thousands of Yemenis on the brink of death and millions more on the brink of starvation."

"While we support Khanna’s amendment, we do not support the NDAA (as a whole) without a significant cut to the Pentagon budget," the group added. "Regardless, the amendment remains a strong message to the Biden administration that Yemen can't wait."

The vote came on the heels of the United Nations food agency highlighting the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, where "people are suffering immensely."

"We're literally looking at 16 million people marching toward starvation," World Food Program executive director David Beasley said Wednesday at a high-level meeting on the humanitarian situation in Yemen.

"We need this war to end, number 1, and if donors are getting fatigued, well, end the war," he added. "World leaders need to put the pressure on all parties involved to end his conflict because the people Yemen have suffered enough."



Praised for 'Braving the Smears,' Tlaib Votes Against $1 Billion in Military Aid to Israel





https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/23/praised-braving-smears-tlaib-votes-against-1-billion-military-aid-israel



One rights group thanked Tlaib "for speaking truth to power" while being attacked "for simply insisting that Palestinians are human beings who deserve safety, security, and freedom from Israeli apartheid."



BRETT WILKINS
September 23, 2021


As the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to approve $1 billion in funding for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system, Rep. Rashida Tlaib was lauded by human rights advocates—and lambasted by some of her pro-Israel colleagues—after explaining why she cast one of only nine votes against the measure.

The House voted 420-9 in favor of the stand-alone Iron Dome funding bill (pdf) days after progressive Democrats including Tlaib (D-Mich.) blocked the military aid from a broader spending package. Eight Democrats and one Republican—Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.)—voted against the measure on Thursday, while Reps. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) voted "present."

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), one of the House's most vocal defenders of Palestinian human rights, voted in favor of the bill.


"I will not support an effort to enable and support war crimes, human rights abuses, and violence," Tlaib said on the House floor while explaining her vote against the Iron Dome funding. "We cannot be talking only about Israelis' need for safety at a time when Palestinians are living under a violent apartheid system, and are dying from what Human Rights Watch said are war crimes."

"We should also be talking about Palestinian need for security from Israeli attacks," added Tlaib, who is the first Palestinian-American woman elected to Congress. "We must be consistent in our commitment to human life, period. Everyone deserves to be safe there."


Human rights and pro-Palestinian groups applauded Tlaib's stance. The Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) thanked the congresswoman "for speaking truth to power, and for braving the smears leveled at you for simply insisting that Palestinians are human beings who deserve safety, security, and freedom from Israeli apartheid."

Jewish Voice for Peace Action also thanked Tlaib, adding that "it is outrageous that Democratic leadership is trying to push forward an additional $1 billion to the Israeli military. Every single progressive member of Congress should vote no."

Supporters of Israel, however, condemned Tlaib's vote and remarks.

"The truth has finally come out on the floor of the House of the United States of America," said Rep. Charles Fleischmann (R-Tenn.). "They have a vocal minority in the majority party that is anti-Israel, that is antisemitic, and as Americans we can never stand for that."

"Let's stand with Israel, let's combat antisemitism wherever it is in the world," he added.

Rep. Ted Deutch—a staunchly pro-Israel Florida Democrat and chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee—also condemned Tlaib's remarks, saying he "cannot allow one of my colleagues to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and label the Jewish democratic state of Israel an apartheid state."

Deutch said that Tlaib "besmirched our ally" and "falsely characterized the state of Israel" like "those who advocate for the dismantling of the one Jewish state in the world."

"When there's no place on the map for one Jewish state, that's antisemitism," Deutch asserted.

Tlaib and other advocates for Palestinian human rights have been repeatedly attacked by Israel supporters, who are often accused of conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and actions with antisemitism. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who along with Tlaib is the first Muslim woman elected to Congress, said in 2019 that such slurs are "designed to end the debate" about Israel's crimes against Palestinians.




In 'Landmark' Decision, EPA Finalizes Rule Cutting Use of Super-Pollutant HFCs





https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/23/landmark-decision-epa-finalizes-rule-cutting-use-super-pollutant-hfcs



The regulation will drastically curb the use of "the most potent super-pollutants known to mankind at the moment," one climate campaigner said.



JULIA CONLEYSeptember 23, 2021
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday finalized a rule long pushed for by climate campaigners that slashes the use of chemicals identified as "super-pollutants" that are commonly used in air conditioners and refrigerators.

The Biden administration announced a new rule requiring the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) be cut by 85% over the next 15 years, implementing a measure in the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, which was passed by Congress last year.

"Today EPA is taking a significant step forward to advance President Biden's bold agenda to tackle the climate crisis," said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. "Cutting these climate 'super pollutants' protects our environment, strengthens our economy, and demonstrates that America is back when it comes to leading the world in addressing climate change and curbing global warming in the years ahead."

The rule was applauded by lawmakers, advocates, and climate scientists who noted the far-reaching effects that a reduction in HFCs will have on the health of the planet.



Gretchen Goldman of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy, who was formerly a research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the rule "an important step to tackle climate emissions."

HFCs, which frequently leak from appliances, heat the atmosphere at a rate hundreds of thousands of times faster than carbon dioxide and are used widely in grocery stores across the country. Undercover investigators with the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) found earlier this year that HFC leaks existed in the freezers and refrigerators of 55% of supermarkets it surveyed in the Washington, D.C. area.

Avipsa Mahapatra, a climate campaign leader at the EIA, called the administration's decision "a landmark EPA rulemaking" which would help drastically curb the use of "the most potent super-pollutants known to mankind at the moment."

The reduction in HFCs resulting from the rule is expected to be the equivalent of 4.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide and will generate about $272 billion in cost savings and public health benefits over the next three decades, according to the White House. The regulation is also expected to promote job creation as companies manufacture alternative cooling mechanisms.

Next month, the EPA is also expected to respond to 13 petitions filed under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, by groups that want to limit the use of HFCs in dehumidifiers and other appliances.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a co-author of the Green New Deal legislation, applauded the EPA's new rule and expressed hope that the Biden administration and Congress will "continue to push for the ambitious solutions we need to combat the climate crisis by passing the budget reconciliation bill."

"HFCs are superheating our planet, exacerbating extreme weather events, and threatening the physical and economic health of our communities," said Markey. "I applaud President Biden's actions to cut down these super-pollutants while strengthening our ability to compete in a global clean energy market."


'You Tell Me What We Should Cut': Sanders Not Budging on $3.5 Trillion





https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/23/you-tell-me-what-we-should-cut-sanders-not-budging-35-trillion



"Poll after poll tells me, and tells you, that what we are trying to do is enormously popular."



JAKE JOHNSON


September 23, 2021


Update:

In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont argued the United States needs "every penny" of the reconciliation package that is currently taking shape in Congress amid ongoing fights over its size and scope.

"The question we face right now is: at this moment, do we have the courage to keep faith with the American people and show them that their democracy in fact can work for them, and not just powerful special interests?" Sanders said. "Let us go forward, let us do the right thing, let us pass this $3.5 trillion reconciliation package."

As conservative Democrats attempt to pare back the legislation, Sanders stressed that the $3.5 trillion plan would make major investments in climate action and child care, establish universal pre-K and paid family leave, and expand Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing benefits. The Vermont senator went on to declare that the bill—which corporate lobbying groups are working hard to tank—"should and will be fully paid for" by raising taxes on the rich and big businesses, and by lowering prescription drug prices.

"This legislation takes an important step forward," Sanders said. "It doesn't go as far as it should, but it is a major step forward in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy."

Watch the full speech:
Play

Earlier:

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday challenged members of the media—and conservative Democrats—to specifically cite which portions of the emerging budget reconciliation package they would remove to lower the proposal's $3.5 trillion price tag, which some lawmakers have characterized as excessive.


"Tell the working families of this country that we don't need to make child care affordable," said Sanders. "Tell the American people and the younger people that we should not address the crisis of climate change and try to save the planet. Tell the homeless people that we should not build affordable housing. Tell the young people that we should not make community colleges tuition-free."Asked during an appearance on "CBS Mornings" whether he would accept a package smaller than $3.5 trillion to appease Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W-Va.) and other right-wing Democrats, Sanders responded, "You tell me what we should cut."

"All we are trying to do is address the crises facing working families and demand that the wealthiest people in this country start paying their fair share in taxes," he continued. "At the end of the day, I believe that we're going to prevail."

Sanders, the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, reiterated that he and a majority of the Democratic caucus originally pushed for a $6 trillion bill, given the urgent need to combat the climate emergency with massive investments in green energy.

"We have already made a significant compromise," said Sanders. "Poll after poll tells me, and tells you, that what we are trying to do is enormously popular. Every single issue has widespread support not only from Democrats, but from Republicans and Independents."

Watch:
Play

Sanders' remarks came after he and other prominent progressive lawmakers met with President Joe Biden at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the reconciliation package, which Democrats hope to pass in the coming days.


Earlier this month, Manchin—a key swing vote in the Senate—urged the Democratic leadership to "hit a strategic pause" on the reconciliation process, arguing that we "must allow for a complete reporting and analysis of the implications a multitrillion-dollar bill will have for this generation and the next."But efforts to quickly advance the sprawling bill have run into opposition from conservative Democrats who, for the most part, have raised vague objections to the bill's price tag and the filibuster-proof procedure being used to pass the bill without Republican support.

The West Virginia Democrat has reportedly voiced broad concerns about "Biden's plan to spend $400 billion for home caregivers" and expressed a desire to more aggressively means-test other proposals.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), for her part, has stated flatly that she will not support a $3.5 trillion bill without elaborating on her objections in any detail.

In an attempt to push the reconciliation package through over conservatives' protests, progressive Democrats in the House are threatening to tank a Senate-passed $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill that Manchin and Sinema helped write. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said earlier this week that "more than half" of the Congressional Progressive Caucus' 96 members are willing to vote against the bipartisan bill unless the reconciliation package is approved first.

Jayapal, the chair of the CPC, held to that position after meeting with Biden on Wednesday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has committed to holding a floor vote on the bipartisan bill by September 27, but it's far from clear that the reconciliation package will be finished by then.

"I reiterated what I have consistently said: progressives will vote for both bills because we proudly support the president's entire Build Back Better package, but that a majority of our 96-member caucus will only vote for the small infrastructure bill after the Build Back Better Act passes," the Washington Democrat said in a statement outlining what was discussed during her meeting with Biden.

"This is the president's agenda, this is the Democratic agenda, and this is what we promised voters when they delivered us the House, the Senate, and the White House," Jayapal added. "We agree with President Biden that, 'We can do this. We have to do this. We will do this.' We remain strongly committed to continuing these discussions so we are able to deliver these two important bills to his desk."