Ok, here's a quick and easy one for anyone out there wondering
just exactly how it is that America could be so globally hated and yet so seemingly "benign" to most of
its citizens. Setting aside--for a moment--the non-stop propaganda assault that fills every single citizen's waking (and
dreaming) consciousness day and fucking night, of course, one primary way in which America is evil (yes, you
read that right) and the number one reason for being so universally loathed by the rest of the world is through our horrifically
duplicitous and hypocritical "outreach" known as Military Aid.
So let's discuss "Military Aid" and how it works from the "Love, American Style" imperial dicta
our nation's (Republican) elite are so perversely fond of. This one falls more under the rubric of misdirection
than straight out propaganda, by the way, but make no mistake; the misdirection is couched within the propaganda thoroughly.
But then,
in our country, what isn't?
It's fairly safe to say that Mr. and Mrs. Joe 2.6 Pack thinks that Military Aid is a "good" thing, primarily because Mr. and
Mrs. Joe 2.6 Pack have no idea what Military Aid actually is. To them, it's a handout; money from the rich to give to the
poor, kind of thing. A generous offering from Uncle Sam to all those indigent nations out there who can't afford to
train and arm their armies as well as we can train and arm our armies, kind of deal, and isn't that just so nice and
good and, let's admit it, downright christian cult of us to do?
Unfortunately, that's largely the extent of Mr. and Mrs. 2.6 Pack's analysis of the situation before going off to not have sex in bed. What
no one ever seems to realize, of course, is that the "military aid" we dump into these countries is never used
to boost up their armies, because no one inside NATO is allowed to have an army so far as we understand that term.
What they can and do have is more like a para military than any kind of functioning army; a potential, auxiliary military force that, for third world
nations especially, are little more than highly trained police officers. Just think "Los Angeles Police Department,"
only without all the white Nazis in direct control.
What this ultimately means is that, all "armies" throughout NATO are little more than potential, auxiliary military forces
of the United States, to be used and controlled by the US whenever we damn well please.
This is how an Empire works; by co-opting all local military units (aka, indigenous means of defending national
borders/sovereignty). The local military becomes little more than an ineffectual offshoot of the American Military.
Sounds good, right? Wrong. Because those billions of dollars in "military aid" go toward training and arming what amounts to
nothing more than domestic paramilitary units, which in turn, of course, translates into, "Thanks for the cash,
guns and training, Gringos, because we have some citizens who are talking trash against our Dictador del día and
would like them tortured and/or killed efficiently as a deterrent to all."
It's really the greatest scam we've got going. Fund their "military" (read: internal political terrorist squad, aka, death squad, only with "official"
democratic deordorant to cover up the stench); don't give a shit what they do with that money;
and then use their military whenever we want to for our own ends. Can anyone say American instigated and Sealed with Non-Oversight Approval coup d'etat? Of course you can!
It's as American as apfelkuchen!
Do we care about that country's deplorable human rights violations? Absolutely not!
Do we care about that country's lack of healthcare or poverty levels? We don't care about our own, so why the
fuck would we care about theirs? Especially if they are all on the brown side.
Well, then, do we care about
how that country's populace will think of us? Of course not! That's why we fund their military to begin with!
Without
a dungeon full of slaves hidden in other people's countries, our leaders would have no one to feed to the lions to justify all of the
billions of dollars we bilk from our citizens every year. Billions of dollars that ultimately serve only our own malicious purposes!
See how it all comes together now? How an Empire maintains its global control without any of its own citizens any the
wiser? It even sounds comforting, doesn't it? "Military Aid." Awwww. Isn't that nice of us? We didn't
have to do it, right? It's from our hearts!
And minds...
Don't kid yourselves, kids. The "war on terror" (version 3.0 of the "war on drugs") is just another way to say "Abracadabra!"
Here are just a few salient facts from the Federation of American Scientists ARMS SALES MONITOR - Highlighting U.S. government policies on arms exports and conventional weapons proliferation (excerpted without permission):
During a 6-month commemoration of the
September 11th terrorist attacks, President Bush issued an open
invitation to governments worldwide to apply for American
military aid: "America encourages and expects
governments everywhere to help remove the terrorist parasites
that threaten their own countries and [the] peace of the
world," declared Bush, "if governments need training, or
resources to meet this commitment, America will help.
Bush has made good on that promise. From the
jungles of Basilan, a Philippine island in the Moro Gulf, to the
rugged Pankisi Gorge in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia,
the flood of U.S. military aid released after the September
11th attack is seeping into an increasing number of disparate
locations, washing away aid restrictions and undermining
norms of democracy and human rights. Since September
11th, the administration has requested nearly $3.8 billion in
security assistance and related aid for 67 countries allegedly linked
in some way to the struggle against terrorism. Many of
these countries are of dubious relevance to the "war on
terror," and some are even waging their own campaigns of
terror against their citizens.
Of the countries currently slated to receive U.S.
military aid, 32 were identified in the State Department's 2000
human rights report as having "poor" human rights records
or worse. Some of the worst offenders are the
administration's new allies in Central Asia. Uzbekistan, for which the
Bush administration has requested over $45 million in Foreign
Military Financing and International Military Education and
Training since September 11th, is among the most
egregious abusers described in State's report. President Karimov's
security forces have been accused of torture, maltreatment
of prisoners leading to deaths in custody, arbitrary arrest
and detention, and harassment of detainees' family members.
While proponents of engagement argue that greater
cooperation with these regimes helps the U.S. government
to promote human rights and democracy, experts note
that many regional leaders are less democratic and respectful
of human rights now than they were in the early 1990s
despite a constant U.S. presence in these states since 1991.
Clearly, the U.S. government has not used the supposed leverage
that comes with engagement effectively, a failure that could have
dire consequences not only for the people of the region, but also
for the international community. "[U]nless the U.S. finds some more
effective means of leveraging these states," warned Carnegie scholar
Martha Brill Olcott at a Senate subcommittee meeting in June, "there
could be some highly undesirable and even violent…regime changes
throughout the region." The $403 million in security and related
assistance requested for the region since September 11th, to which
very few human rights conditions have been attached, will not solve
this problem, and may make it worse.
The aid recipients listed above are but a few of the
many states now receiving "counter-terrorism" aid, despite an
often vague or nonexistent connection between the
recipient and the global battle against terrorism. In the FY 2002
Supplemental Appropriations bill alone, the administration
requested over $1.1 billion in security assistance to fight terrorism in
45 countries. The final version includes $387 million in
Foreign Military Financing, or $14.5 million more than Bush's
request.
Among the more visible manifestations of the U.S.
Special Forces to prepare Georgian and Filipino troops for battle,
supposedly against al Qaeda foot soldiers and other
terrorists. Yet in each of these cases, the links to the al
Qaeda network, let alone the actual presence of al Qaeda
soldiers, is dubious.
For example, the State Department is sending $64
million to root out terrorists in the Pankisi Gorge, where
fighters from the war in Chechnya are seeking refuge. Yet
though the U.S. government alleges they have links with al
Qaeda, even the Georgian defense minister has publicly voiced
his doubts. As quoted in the June 3 issue of Defense
Week, General-Lieutenant David Tevzadze asserted, "For me
personally, it is very difficult to believe in that [al Qaeda is in
the Gorge] because to come from Afghanistan to that part
of Georgia, they need to [cross] at least six or seven
countries, including [the] Caspian Sea. No, al Qaeda influence
can't be in the country." More likely, the U.S. government
wants to help shore up the Georgian military's capacity to
protect a planned oil pipeline that will traverse Georgia on its
way from the Caspian Sea to Turkey.
The decision to go after the Abu Sayyaf Group
(ASG), the band of Islamic militants currently being targeted by
U.S. and Filipino soldiers, is equally puzzling. More a criminal
organization than anything else, the ASG has
demonstrated neither the capacity nor the inclination to engage in the
type of transnational terrorist acts that the U.S. public
and policymakers fear most. Nor is it any longer a significant
ally of terrorist groups like al Qaeda that do have global reach.
A key goal of the U.S. military aid to the Philippines
was likely to rescue U.S. missionaries Martin and
Gracia Burnham. But even though the rescue effort is over
(unfortunately with an American and Filipino hostage being
killed), U.S. forces are still planning to start another round of
training scheduled to last from October 2002 through June 2003.
The possibility of reestablishing a presence in the
South China Sea (with its large reserves of oil and natural gas
and strategic shipping routes), which the U.S. lost after
being kicked out of Philippine bases in 1991, probably helps
explain this decision. Military aid to the Philippines began
to rise after a Visiting Forces Agreement signed in 1999
allowed U.S. forces to return for joint exercises. The
U.S. government is now pressuring Manila to sign a Mutual
Logistics Support Agreement, which will make it even
easier for U.S. military forces to maintain a presence on
Philippine territory.
Links to a terrorist threat are perhaps most tenuous
in Nepal, which is set to receive $20 million in Foreign
Military Financing. The aid is intended to help the Nepalese
military fight off a Maoist insurgency despite the fact that the
State Department admits it does "not have direct evidence of
an al-Qaeda presence" in that country. Nor is the group
on State's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. According
to the State Department, in this case and several others the
mere presence of Muslims in the region coupled with
a somewhat unstable government is enough of a
potential threat to justify doling out millions in military aid.
The strained logic used to justify these military aid
requests threatens not only the coherence of the U.S.
campaign against terrorism, but many other U.S. foreign
policy objectives as well, including the advancement of human
rights and regional stability.
