Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "U.S. Army War College"
channel.
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
Kids of the well-off middle class and upwards (or of the "journalist class") are not destined to become cannon fodder. All of U.S. society is fawning over the military and patriotism. That is the PR move of the military Industrial Complex. Fawning over the troops is a small price to pay if you do not challenge the narrative of the MIC which is eagerly spread by mainstram media.
In case you have ever wondered WHY the military OR military contractors have ads on the TV networks, after all they do not have a product for civilians.
... Well they DO have something to SeLL - in that case not to consumers but to voters .....
The "well-to-do" in the U.S. may even enjoy being armchair warriors: verbally "kicking the ass of the Soviets, Iran, Syria, Iraq, ... etc." - this is gratifying for the ego and does not include any personal risks or even costs (tax cuts !).
These verbal warriors have no intention to become the cannon fodder. The government knew what they were doing when they did not use the draft anymore after Vietnam. At least enough middle class men were killed that the support for the war evaporated. (In 1967 MLK lost a lot of goodwill when he decisively spoke out against the war.
"My governmetn is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world ..." - but the public later caught on, he was ahead of the curve.
Such a good thing that now others - low(er) income people ! sign up "voluntarily" (economic pressure, plus massive propaganda). So the wealthy can have their cake and eat it too. They can be all for war (and profit from it) and also delegate the killing and being killed to people that are less smart, self-centered or less wealthy. THEIR kids are not going.
Now, they also avoid paying taxes and invest into lobbying to have their taxes lowered. They are also more likely to own the shares of contractors. So only advantages if cheering for war - psychologically it is an ego boost, financially they profit. Plus: young underprivileged men (who might else be unemployed) are taken into a dangerous government "jobs program".
They do not get restlesss at home or start to organize because THEY have no way up the ladder. Even better: they work for the financial interest of the U.S. ELITES (not the intersts of the regular U.S. citizens !) in foreign countries. They are under the thumb of the military machine and if they want to be aggressive they can do so - against OTHER people in other nations.
The angry / decisive / go-get-them energy of young males (a potential threat to the status quo) is diffused, it does not build up at home to form a wave. (Think Black Panthers).
Many soldiers who had been in combat coped and returned to civilian life - at least without visible open (counted !) damage. Others fell apart and it could not be denied. but there was no desire to get the full picture and to assess to FULL PRICE these young, often idealistic soldiers had to pay (even if they tried to stay decent and did not attack civilians intentionally).
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@dochawk61 The soldiers had quotas to kill Vietcongs, it was easier to kill helpless civilians. The "leadership" tolerated or even encouraged that - it meant promotion for soldiers and commanders, and maybe better assignments if they fulfillied the death count. Mai Lai was nothing exceptional. the unusal thing about it was that the U.S. public learned of it and that there was an investigation.
The soldiers did not "answer the call of our country" they served the interests of the socipaths in the ruling U.S. class, their ego, desire to look good in polls and win elections or financial gains.
The U.S. did not need to be "defended" from the Vietnamese. The U.S. decided to help the French to suppress the independence of the colony Indochine. When the French lost interest / could not win, the U.S. for some weird reason carried on.
WISE U.S. politicians would have offered GENEROUS financial help. the Vietnamese were not "into communism" (not that that would have been any business of the U.S.)
The just were against the U.S. installed CORRUPT puppet regime. (If they had at least helped install a responsive democratic government FOR the people. They likely would have gone center right or center left - and would have maintained friendly ties with the U.S.
Contrary to propaganda the Soviet Union and China were more than busy with their own shit. China has an isolationist tradition. The Soviets KNEW they needed a "market" for modern industrial production - so they had the Warsaw Pact states and tried to secure influence. They would not even have started that (to that degree) if the U.S. had not started the hostilities right after the death of FDR. Stalin offered to retract from Germany in 1952.
The Soviets were hanging on for dear life during and after WW2 (27 milion people had died !). Leaving them alone, being non-threating in a military sense and giving them economic help would have worked over the course of a decade. Stalin died in 1953 (rumours - he may have been poisoned). At least THEN a thawing would have been possible, and a lot of carrots (not the stick) would have strengthened the hand of the more moderate forces in the Polit Bureau. After Stalin there was a battle for power and about the philosophy going on in the Polit Burea and it was undecided for the longest time.
the powers that be in the U.S. WANTED the Cold War - Truman started it even before WW2 was over (in Europe were it was in the end phase in April, the war ended in May 1945).
They U.S. "elites" (CIA, military, contractors, neocons, ..) were shocked when the S.U. stepped down from the Cold War in the 1990s. That is why Gorbachev got little economic support (would have cost much less than ongoing U.S. military spending !). The MIC and the U.S. oligarchs prefered Yeltzin and helped him win the elctions (U.S. stratetgists !! dark money, see the Times report and cover AFTER he had "won" the elections. THEN they reported on the collusion). Yeltz was incompetent and sell out and a drinker - but he let Russia be plundered and was gladly tolerated if not respected.
That is the main problem with Putin: healthy, disciplined, intelligent, knows to play the game of power, is decisive, does not drink, knows a lot (KGB officer) - that's another league compared to Yeltzin.
Authoritarian regimes (Russia, China9 have the advantage that they can follow a CONSISTENT foreign policy and can play the long game. In the U.S. foreign policy is for posturing, satisfying the Big Donors and making points in opinion polls. And changes every 4 years are not unusual.
Good thing the CIA has a lot of influence behind the scenes and works for the MIC. If there is no goal but to prop up the MIC and military spending - strategy and the names of the enemy do not matter.
"War On Terror" is better than the Cold War (and it also ! allows domestic mass surveillance !). When the Soviet Union stepped down from the Cold War - it was over. The S.U. or Russian military is a well defined, tangible structure, with a chain of command.
War on "terror" luckily is not well defined. These guys and their groups are not open on display like a government army. They rearrange, reform, switch alliances. (And the U.S. can covertly fund them so they will not go away).
The MIC of the U.S. will never again lose their main enemy and reason for existing.
Not like with the Soviets when they quit - and without prior notice !
1
-
The U.S. had not business at ALL to start a war of aggression against Vietnam (or Korea which was another carnage - worse for the Koreans). The war was hard to justify, they had to leave the sons of prosperous families alone, resp. those were clever enough to dodge the draft (see president bone spurs or John Bolton who was smart enough to enlist with the National Guard. Romney played the missionary in France, Sanders did not want to go (but at least objected to the war - he was never drafted), Bill Clinton did not go either.
Only those who were caught up in a family tradition, or those who had swallowed the "patriotic narrative" of the sociopaths in the White House and the Pentagon or those who saw the military as economic way up would be willing to fight. The atrocities already committed by the U.S. were bad enough and some (not nearly enough) was reported.
So they had a shortage and drafted men with low IQ- Men who were practically unable to serve and posed a danger for their comrades if they were not put to kitchen work or other safe and peaceful work. These men had the three-fold risk to be killed - they just were too slow to react quickly and did not have their wits about them in stressful situations.
Now, the mentally challenged of wealthy families had protection of course (and the sons of congressman got deferments for having braces !) - but the poor fools were enlisted without any scruples. Their commanders often wrote memos (seeing how they were a danger more to friend that to foe). The government knew when they would go after young capable men that did not enlist voluntarily there would be an upsurge of resistance.
And unlike with WW2 there was no moral case to be made. The Japanese had bombed Peal Harbour (even if there is more to the story). And the Germans DID declare war on the U.S. The U.S. of course openly supported the British with weapons and goods for civilians. Hitler might have thought war with the U.S. inevitable and had an agreement with Japan (he broke such a deal with the Soviet Union however). But it was really stupid to invite the U.S. to join the war in Europe and Norther Africa, instead of letting them be busy in the Pacific and let the Japanese fend for themselves.
So McNamara had his 100,000 fools - they were called that (just saw a video). Remarkable how that speaker, a military man was incensed that the mentally disabled were used as cannon fodder. But he never made the connection that the young, healthy and smart men should not have been put in harms way either. (Never mind the countless Asian victims).
The U.S. had no business being there and killing the soldiers and citizens of Vietnam (or in the decades before when the U.S. helped the French to subdue the COLONY Indochine. The French gave up on the effort - but the U.S. continued the fight. Way to go for the former British colony which separated from the empire in 1776.
The ruling sociapaths not only do not give a damn about poor brown people in far away countries - they also do not give a damn about their own citizens. But the soldiers and their families and friends have the vote so they have to maintain appearances at home.
It is not as bad as during the Vietnam war. But when the recruiters do not meet the monthly or quarterly quotas they are allowed to lower the standards - also for the mental capacities.
In another story the draft dodgers in the White House (Trump, Bolton) push for war with Iran.
There is the story that Trump said he wanted Assad assassinated (Spring 2017, the alleged chemical attack). Gen. Mattis (I think it was Mattis, a military man) obediently nodded, left the room - and said to everbody else. We are not doing that ! Well it did not happen.
Bob Woodward wrote the book Fear about the admin, he had access to the highest levels it seems (And with him that claim is credible). He had many media appearances this summer / fall to promote the book. - They steal documents from Trump's desk. If he does not see them he does not remember (or also plausible: he is a functional illiterate, he can read a little bit). So if they do not give him the documents ready for signing he is lost. And he will of course not admit it. It would make him unfit to be president.
When the U.S. became a Republic - they British empire had a mad king. George (the Third ?)
1
-
They were not "fools" they were sociopaths. And the goals were achieved. Financial gains, political grandstanding to get elected. The Red Scare was the pretext for regime change and to crush the left movements at home. In Europe Social Democracy had to be tolerated - but everwhere else even that moderate version was fiercly fought against (see Latin America. Chile 1973, this was by no means a radical government. nationalize the mining industry and let the citizens have the gains. Land reform - but the land ownser were compensated. Very reasonable reforms from the point of view of U.S. citizens. Chilew was poor, if the reforms would work - a democracy on the rise. Buyers of goods, a potential vacation destination. Tehy would not send migrants. On the contrary the country could absorb migrants from other countries. Chile si too small, unimportant to play a role even IF the experient under Salvador Alliende would have gone wrong.
But it was not likely to turn out worse than they were off - and there was potential.
The U.S. elites were not having it. could give ideas to the other serfs and colonies of the U.S. in Latin America. could even give ideas to the U.S. population ! So the natural resources were NOT left for private profiteers to extract (AT & T had interest in the copper mines of Chile, but apart from some mining there was little of economic interest).
Chile was a threat to the ideology and the propaganda. So the U.S. helped to pull off the first 9/11 - in 1973.
The U.S. was scared shitless that the "left / communists" would have SUCCESSES. (The state department was worried about that in the 1930s). The problem with Stalin or Lening was not that they were brutal dictators - when have the U.K. or the U.S. ever objected to THAT.
They dispossessed rich and influental people (incl. the czar). the democratically minded revolutionaries at least were for land reform. The Bolshevics grabbed power 6 months later (the military invervention ! - Japan, France, U.K. U.S. INVADED Russia then to hel the czar) helped the most ruthless groups that were GOOD in fighting - the bolshevics. They took over the Soviets (grassroots groups that had formed around work, planst and farms - like co-ops or kibbuzz).
Anyway: Russia was so desperately poor, illiterate and backwards that even the Bolshevics brought the country forward (regarding industrialization !) - with terrible side effects (famines, purges, gulags). But still - the nation devloped. And it is not like they had it good under the czar.
The U.S. oligarchs and robber barons who hated the left (Communists, Social Democrats unions) watched that nervously. Bad enough that they had to put up with FDR and could not get rid of him. FDR rode a wave of strong left movements in the U.S. Those movements forced his hand - and gave him leverage for the New Deal at the same time. FDR was the rich populist saving capitalism form itself.
Some of the rich were insightful enough to see that he was the lesser evil. (FDR had to "help" some Democratic politicians to get that insight - he twisted their arm and threatened to campaign against themif they would not vote for the relief measures. - Obama had a mandate like FDR, but he already sold out to the Big Donors - else he would have had a blue print how to get things done For The People.
Republican rich industrial leaders and many banksters HATED FDR, could not do anything about hims (the coup planning in 1934 did not go anywhere, they would have needed the army and the veterans). They envied the fascists in Europe that were so successful then (not only in Italy and Germany).
They could wish for fascism all day long - they would not get it in the U.S. where a left populist had decisively taken the reigns. After the death of FDR they saw a chance to course correct - somewhat. And they seized the opportunity that the global economic disruption of the 2 oil crises in the 1970s offered.
(Note to self: the oligarchs play the long game - they can afford to money buys the effort and labour and press coverage over the decades). The Reagan election was crucial - and last but not least the 1976 Supreme Court decision that Money equals free speech (good thing Nixon had appointed a right wing judge he was the deciding vote). The Democrats had not pushed for that decision, but they immediately saw the possibilities to get more of the gravy train.
The U.S. oligarchs were glad FDR was gone, they likely noted the fading health of FDR and made sure the fairly progressive Wallace did not stay VP. (Truman ithe war monger nstead). And Truman very much promoted (invented ?) the Cold War.
Which was very luctrative for the MIC AND provided the pretext to crush the Left parties in the country with the REd Scare.
The U.S. had the Socialist farmers of Kansas in the 1930s to give you an idea.
1
-
1