Will Even the War Profiteers Benefit from World War this Time Round? By James Reed
War profiteering has been a well-known phenomenon, commented upon by Major Douglas (1879-1952) and other great thinkers, and even the liberal globalist of sorts, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was right on this one. The best literary account is from German playwriter Bertolt Brecht, in Mother Courage and Her Children (1941), about a merchant who tours the theatres of war, making her money selling goods to both sides of the conflict. And today in the US and indeed, across the West, military contractors and private mercenaries drink down billions of dollars in taxpayer funds. The military industrial complex is indeed, the biggest of businesses, more so than even Big Pharma, and as seen with Covid, the sectors interact, with the US military leading the way in urging promotion of the experimental mRNA vax, and the lockdowns.
But according to Professor Dr. Ken Hammond, the military industrial complex now threats human civilisation itself, posing an existential risk:
"It's a money laundering scheme in a number of ways," said Hammond, responding to news that the Biden administration is preparing to ship $567 million in lethal aid to authorities in Taiwan. "Stuff that's laying around in military warehouses – obsolete equipment – they're going to ship that off to Taiwan as part of the ongoing efforts to poke China in the eye, provoke situations there, create a lot of public consciousness of tension and conflict and fear about the situation between the United States and China."
"They're basically giving away these weapons to Taiwan, and then they're going to turn around and buy new ones to replace those," he said. "So that, too, is a giveaway to the defense industry, the so-called defense industry – the war industry, really. It's part of an ongoing relationship between the military-industrial complex and their control of the American government. So there's really no surprise here."
This time round though, as indicated by President Vlad Putin, there is the real risk of a nuclear exchange occurring, which could easily escalate into full-on nuclear war. And, that will not be so good for business.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-war-profiteers-bring-world-brink-armageddon
"The military-industrial complex now threatens not only public investment but human civilization itself, according to author and professor Dr. Ken Hammond.
"In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
Such were the words of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a moderate Republican who previously served in the US Army as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe during World War II. Like Major General Smedley Butler, who served in the armed forces one generation before him, Eisenhower saw the nexus of private profit and military might firsthand. His successive political experience led him to coin his now-famous term for the phenomenon, which in earlier drafts of his farewell address he called the military-industrial-Congressional complex.
The scourge of war profiteering was already well understood in Eisenhower's day, with journalists having castigated the merchants of death who armed all sides in World War I and the War of the Pacific, but economic developments since the 1940s have accelerated the trend with military contractors and private mercenaries siphoning off billions of dollars in taxpayer funds.
The military-industrial complex now threatens not only public investment but human civilization itself, according to author and professor Dr. Ken Hammond. The expert in East Asian and Global History joined Sputnik's The Critical Hour program Tuesday to discuss how the influence of weapons manufacturers has brought the world to the brink of war with Russia and China.
"It's a money laundering scheme in a number of ways," said Hammond, responding to news that the Biden administration is preparing to ship $567 million in lethal aid to authorities in Taiwan. "Stuff that's laying around in military warehouses – obsolete equipment – they're going to ship that off to Taiwan as part of the ongoing efforts to poke China in the eye, provoke situations there, create a lot of public consciousness of tension and conflict and fear about the situation between the United States and China."
"They're basically giving away these weapons to Taiwan, and then they're going to turn around and buy new ones to replace those," he explained. "So that, too, is a giveaway to the defense industry, the so-called defense industry – the war industry, really. It's part of an ongoing relationship between the military-industrial complex and their control of the American government. So there's really no surprise here."
The United States has committed to recognizing the territory of Taiwan as part of the People's Republic of China in at least three formal declarations, including the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué negotiated under former President Richard Nixon and two subsequent agreements in 1979 and 1982. The issue represented an important part of the diplomatic efforts necessary to normalize relations with Beijing, opening the country up to global capital and manufacturing. But the US has increasingly sought to provoke China on the sensitive issue in recent years, shipping arms to Taiwanese authorities and dispatching ships to the Taiwan Strait.
Beijing has called for the United States to respect Chinese sovereignty and refrain from interfering in the internal matter. China considers Taiwan an inalienable part of its sovereign territory and opposes any official contacts between the island and foreign countries. Beijing has repeatedly said that the One-China principle is a political foundation of China-US relations and that violations by Washington of its own obligations have been jeopardizing cooperation between the two countries, threatening peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
Moscow has backed China on the issue, reaffirming its commitment to the One-China principle and recognizing Taiwan as an inalienable part of China in a number of official statements.
"Between these different [arms] shipments... this adds up to about a billion dollars," said Hammond of recent US guarantees to Taiwanese authorities. "What could they be doing with that billion dollars to house people who are living in tents and cardboard boxes on the streets of our cities? What could they do with that billion dollars to improve health care in this country? What could they do with a billion dollars to help out kids in our schools so they get a better education?"
"This is just pouring good money after bad down the drain of warfare and warmongering that doesn't serve the interests of the American people and ultimately doesn't even serve the interests of the people of Taiwan," he said, claiming the Democratic and Republican parties are in a competition to see "who's going to be the most warlike in our relationship with China."
"[Taiwanese people] don't want a war... but that's what the United States is trying to provoke," noted Hammond.
The Donbass conflict has provided another major opportunity for arms manufacturers to rake in record profits, transforming Ukraine into a de-facto member of NATO by pumping the country full of Western armaments. Critics claim the US-led bloc has sought to expand for the sake of weapons manufacturers, with each new member state required to upgrade its military equipment to ensure interoperability with its neighbors.
NATO has grown dramatically since the end of the Cold War, adding 16 more member states from 1999 through 2024. Many new members are former Eastern Bloc countries, threatening both Moscow's trade relationships and its security as the hostile bloc expands towards Russia's border. US officials have recognized the destabilizing potential of NATO expansion, but private profit has continued to provide a powerful incentive for the bloc to march eastward.
"They just blindly charge ahead with this stuff that's clearly in violation of our own stated policy," noted Hammond. "They don't care. They're just doing that. So they can say one thing, but what matters is that they do another. And the thing that they do is directly opposite to this rhetoric."
Comments