Nous accueillons avec un grand int\u00e9r\u00eat et empressement cet article du Saker US<\/em>, qui nous dit que la Grande R\u00e9publique est engag\u00e9e dans une s\u00e9quence ralentie d’un seppuku<\/a><\/em>, ou hara-kiri<\/em> si vous comprenez ce qu’il veut et ce que nous voulons dire, et que le seul myst\u00e8re subsistant serait celui de savoir qui assumera le r\u00f4le du kaishakunin<\/em><\/a>, c’est-\u00e0-dire la personne qui tranche c\u00e9r\u00e9monieusement la t\u00eate du martyre qui vient de s’enfoncer le sabre traditionnel dans le ventre. Sur ce dernier point (l’identit\u00e9 du kaishakunin<\/em>), le Saker US <\/em>ajoute cette r\u00e9serve qui est \u00e0 notre sens essentielle, bienvenue et tout \u00e0 fait justifi\u00e9e, — « en admettant qu’il y en aura un<\/em> », – car il doit bien \u00eatre entendu que la susdite Grande R\u00e9publique peut \u00e9ventuellement fort bien se passer de quelque aide que ce soit pour faire ce qu’elle a \u00e0 faire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Notre int\u00e9r\u00eat et notre empressement viennent simplement, d’abord du fait que cette analyse rencontre parfaitement notre sentiment depuis longtemps, sur cette hypoth\u00e8se de la course suicidaire des USA, en le renfor\u00e7ant du concept d’autodestruction que nous connaissons si bien (« the Empire is pursuing a full-spectrum policy of self-destruction on several distinct levels<\/em> ») ; et ce sentiment, bien entendu, qui ne cesse de se renforcer jour apr\u00e8s jour. Depuis de nombreuses ann\u00e9es, nous d\u00e9veloppons cette analyse de la tendance suicidaire des USA et nous l’accompagnons r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement, depuis la premi\u00e8re fois où nous l’avons signal\u00e9e (14 avril 2008<\/a>), de la citation fameuse d’Abraham Lincoln devenue ainsi une sorte de leitmotiv :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « …Effectivement, seul le d\u00e9sespoir de l’am\u00e9ricaniste r\u00e9pond \u00e0 ces constats qui prennent acte d’un malaise qui vient du fond de l’histoire am\u00e9ricaine, d’un malaise qui \u00e9tait sans doute une partie de la substance de l’Am\u00e9rique d\u00e8s son origine. Assez curieusement, ou bien d’une fa\u00e7on absolument r\u00e9v\u00e9latrice au contraire, cette id\u00e9e rejoint celle d’un discours c\u00e9l\u00e8bre de Lincoln, rappel\u00e9 r\u00e9cemment par Greil Marcus dans son livre ‘L’Am\u00e9rique et ses proph\u00e8tes’<\/em>. C’est le premier grand discours du jeune (29 ans) Abraham Lincoln en tant qu’homme public, alors qu’il vient d’\u00eatre \u00e9lu Repr\u00e9sentant de l’Illinois, discours du d\u00e9but de 1838 \u00e0 Springfield: \u00ab\u00a0A quel moment, donc, faut-il s’attendre \u00e0 voir surgir le danger <\/em>[pour l’Am\u00e9rique]? Je r\u00e9ponds que, s’il doit nous atteindre un jour, il devra surgir de nous-m\u00eames.<\/em> […] Si la destruction devait un jour nous atteindre, nous devrions en \u00eatre nous-m\u00eames les premiers et les ultimes artisans<\/strong>. En tant que nation d’hommes libres, nous devons \u00e9ternellement survivre, ou mourir en nous suicidant<\/strong>.\u00a0\u00bb <\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n La chose est donc en bonne voie, constate le Saker<\/em>, citant plusieurs domaines, – en fait l’essentiel de la vie publique et de la puissance des USA, – où cette m\u00eame tendance autodestructrice se manifeste dans l’incoh\u00e9rence, le nihilisme, la corruption, l’aveuglement et le chaos des entreprises. Il est manifeste que l’administration du pr\u00e9sident Trump, que l’on ne savait pas si \u00ab\u00a0lincolnien\u00a0\u00bb, a pouss\u00e9, directement et indirectement, cette dynamique \u00e0 son comble<\/strong>… (Et certes, c’est pour cela que nous continuons \u00e0 applaudir Trump d’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, quelles que soient ses erreurs, ses faiblesses, ses maladresses, etc., mais en souhaitant quasi-ouvertement qu’il ne r\u00e9ussisse pas, surtout pas, \u00e0 tenir sa promesse de \u00ab\u00a0America Great Again<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, – ce qui nous semble bien parti.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Le Saker<\/em> estime que la ligne suicidaire des USA est suivie parall\u00e8lement dans quatre domaines essentiels… \u00ab\u00a0Political suicide<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, qui renvoie \u00e0 la d\u00e9gradation acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9e des institutions, de la fonctions pr\u00e9sidentielle, des principales institutions du pouvoir, au travers de l’attaque sans merci <\/strong>que les extr\u00e9mistes neocons<\/em>\/d\u00e9mocrates et gauchistes (\u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s ceux que nous d\u00e9signons comme les progressistes-soci\u00e9taux) lancent sans discontinuer contre l’administration Trump. La d\u00e9l\u00e9gitimation et une sorte de doctrine de l'\u00a0\u00bbill\u00e9galisme\u00a0\u00bb r\u00e9duisent toutes ces structures en les minant, en les dissolvant<\/strong>, et ainsi d\u00e9truisant m\u00e9thodiquement ce qui fut sans aucun doute l’instrument le plus puissant et le plus efficace des USA, son pouvoir install\u00e9 \u00e0 Washington D.C.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Il y a ensuite le \u00ab\u00a0Foreign Policy suicide<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, d\u00e9j\u00e0 fortement entam\u00e9 avec les pr\u00e9sidence Bush et surtout Obama, et aujourd’hui devenu un spectacle extraordinaire d’incoh\u00e9rence, d’illogisme, de contradictions, en Syrie et alentour principalement, et particuli\u00e8rement dans les relations des USA avec la Russie. Personne aujourd’hui n’est capable de comprendre ce qu’est la politique ext\u00e9rieure US, au point assez naturel qu’on en vient \u00e0 conclure qu’il y a aujourd’hui en action une sorte d’antipolitique \u00e9trang\u00e8re \u00e9mergeant curieusement comme la perfection du nihilisme du d\u00e9sordre qui poursuit inexorablement sa progression<\/strong>. Tout cela est jalonn\u00e9 de menaces diverses de conflits, plusieurs \u00e0 la fois d’ailleurs, contre l’Iran, contre la Cor\u00e9e du Nord, contre la Russie, etc., selon une perspective absurde que les USA sont absolument incapables d’accomplir, sans compter les risques de catastrophe militaire ou de catastrophe g\u00e9n\u00e9rale tout court qui l’accompagnent. Le Saker <\/em>fait suivre cela d’un \u00ab\u00a0Military suicide<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, qui compl\u00e8te le domaine pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent et rendant compl\u00e8tement irresponsables les plans de menaces de vastes conflits dont sont pleins les discours et les articles US. Ce point concerne non seulement la sur\u00e9valuation de l’outil militaire US, non seulement son usure, mais plus encore et d’une mani\u00e8re bien plus grave son incapacit\u00e9 ontologique \u00e0 se renouveler et \u00e0 se moderniser par l’impuissance catastrophique où conduisent les impasses technologiques<\/strong> mises \u00e0 jour au prix de d’une catastrophique incontr\u00f4labilit\u00e9 des budgets.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n (Le JSF\/F-35 est bien entendu l’arch\u00e9type, l’exemple et le symbole de cette \u00e9volution, \u00e9norme trou noir de centaines de $milliards d\u00e9bouchant sur un instrument qui n’est d’aucun usage s\u00e9rieux sinon de d\u00e9monstration furtive par beau temps pour shows a\u00e9ronautiques en petit comit\u00e9 ; le JSF, dont dix exemplaires F-35B du Corps des Marines enti\u00e8rement \u00ab\u00a0op\u00e9rationnels\u00a0\u00bb mettent sept jours [du 18 au 25 janvier 2017] pour faire la jonction entre les USA et le Japon, avec 250 ravitaillements en vol [25 par avions], les avions volant perche de prise de ravitaillement laiss\u00e9e sortie \u00ab\u00a0par prudence\u00a0\u00bb… L’article d’Aviation Week<\/em> du 14 f\u00e9vrier<\/a> d\u00e9taille sans rire mais tout de m\u00eame avec une certaine ironie am\u00e8re cette randonn\u00e9e \u00e9pique où tout s’est \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9roul\u00e9 selon le plan pr\u00e9vu\u00a0\u00bb, selon l’Air Force qui avait organis\u00e9 cette performance.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Apr\u00e8s avoir observ\u00e9 que tout cela s’accompagne comme dernier domaine du suicidaire de cette tendance psychologique extraordiunaire du d\u00e9ni de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9<\/strong>, qui s’est affirm\u00e9e avec tant de force depuis la crise de l’Ukraine et l’usage d\u00e9ment des narrative<\/em>, le Saker<\/em> termine en avan\u00e7ant la pr\u00e9vision que l’une des deux probabilit\u00e9s principales de suicide, selon lui, serait un conflit avec l’Iran où la puissance militaire US irait devant une catastrophe qui affecterait d\u00e9cisivement son statut et sa sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9, laquelle ne subsiste qu’au niveau d’une perception faussaire que nul ne peut daigner aux USA, \u00e0 cause de la puissance du syst\u00e8me de la communication et de la fascination ainsi suscit\u00e9e. Cette perspective est effectivement envisag\u00e9e depuis plusieurs ann\u00e9es, comme une des possibilit\u00e9s d’\u00e9croulement brutal de la puissance des USA, comme l’observait d\u00e9j\u00e0 en avril 2010<\/a> le n\u00e9o-secessionniste du Vermont Thomas Naylor (« There are three or four possible scenarios that will bring down the empire… One possibility is a war with Iran…<\/em> »). L’alternative \u00e0 la destruction de l'\u00a0\u00bbEmpire\u00a0\u00bb par une guerre, c’est la d\u00e9sint\u00e9gration interne du syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme, avec effets sur le Syst\u00e8me, par la poursuite de l’actuelle gu\u00e9rilla qui d\u00e9truit le pouvoir central<\/strong>… Nous avons toujours \u00e9t\u00e9 de l’opinion, depuis que l’on parle de l’effondrement des USA, que cette alternative l’emporterait sur celle de la guerre, cet avis \u00e9tant bien entendu teint\u00e9 d’un fervent souhait qu’effectivement la chose se passe de cette fa\u00e7on. (« Should the AngloZionists succeed in triggering a war between Iran and the Empire, then Iran will end up being the Empire’s kaishakunin. If the crazies fail in their manic attempts at triggering a major war, then the Empire will probably collapse under the pressure of the internal contradictions of the US society<\/em>. »)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Il existe, de plus en plus visiblement, un \u00e9puisement du commentaire pour tenter de distinguer et de caract\u00e9riser ce qui, d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment, n’existe plus dans les agitations colossales de la puissance am\u00e9ricaniste <\/strong>: un sens, une orientation, un dessein coh\u00e9rent, quelque chose qui ne soit pas l’effet de ces mouvements convulsifs que dispense le pouvoir am\u00e9ricaniste, apr\u00e8s cette folle campagne USA-2016, et avec un nouveau gouvernement que toutes les pressions et toutes les dynamiques tendent \u00e0 rendre impuissant autant qu’\u00e0 le paralyser. Il est significatif que le Saker<\/em>, ce commentateur qui s’est toujours attach\u00e9 \u00e0 d\u00e9terminer un sens dans les situations politiques les plus complexes, semble ici baisser les bras et poser la plume pour simplement constater l’in\u00e9luctable. Le Saker<\/em> semble juger le gouvernement et la politique des USA comme il juge le gouvernement et la politique de l’Ukraine<\/strong> ; le rapprochement est acceptable, ce qui est une bonne mesure du sentiment \u00e9prouv\u00e9 devant la situation US, la diff\u00e9rence \u00e9tant bien entendu qu’une telle situation de l’Ukraine est sans cons\u00e9quences d\u00e9cisives ni m\u00eame importantes sur le reste, tandis qu’au contraire une telle situation des USA ne peut qu’avoir des r\u00e9percussions consid\u00e9rables qui modifieront, qui sont en train de modifier de fond en comble la situation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du monde<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Quoi qu’il en soit, il semble bien que l’on approche du point où la politique ne peut plus \u00eatre d\u00e9termin\u00e9e \u00e0 partir de ce qu’on distingue des intentions, des int\u00e9r\u00eats et des impulsions humaines. Cela est conforme \u00e0 ce que nous devinons tous, ce que nous ressentons de cette Grande Crise G\u00e9n\u00e9rale, ici dans sa phase am\u00e9ricaniste, mais partout pr\u00e9sente bien entendu.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Le texte du Saker <\/em>est notamment sur UNZ.com<\/em> le 12 mars<\/a>, et sur le site de l’auteur le m\u00eame 12 mars<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ______________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In all the political drama taking place in the US as a result of the attempted color revolution against Trump<\/strong><\/a>, the bigger picture sometimes gets forgotten. And yet, this bigger picture is quite amazing, because if we look at it we will see irrefutable signs that the Empire in engaged in some bizarre slow motion version of seppuku <\/em>and the only mystery left is who, or what, will serve as the Empire’s kaishakunin<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (assuming there will be one).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I would even argue that the Empire is pursuing a full-spectrum policy of self-destruction on several distinct levels, with each level contributing the overall sum total suicide. And when I refer to self-destructive behavior I don’t mean long-term issues such as the non-sustainability of the capitalist economic model or the social consequences of a society which not only is unable to differentiate right from wrong, but which now decrees that deviant behavior is healthy and normal. These are what I call \u00ab\u00a0long term walls\u00a0\u00bb into which we will, inevitably, crash, but which are comparatively further away than some \u00ab\u00a0immediate walls\u00a0\u00bb. Let me list a few of these:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Political suicide<\/strong>: the Neocons’ refusal to accept the election of Donald Trump has resulted in a massive campaign to de-legitimize him. What the Neocons clearly fail to see, or don’t care about, is that by de-legitimizing Trump they are also de-legitimizing the entire political process which brought Trump to power and upon which the United States is built as a society. As a direct result of this campaign, not only are millions of Americans becoming disgusted with the political system they were indoctrinated to believe in, but internationally the notion of \u00ab\u00a0American democracy\u00a0\u00bb is becoming a sad joke.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And just to make things worse, the US corporate media is finally revealing its true face and has now unapologetically shown the entire world that not only is it not in any way \u00ab\u00a0fair\u00a0\u00bb or \u00ab\u00a0objective\u00a0\u00bb, but that it is a 100% prostituted propaganda machine which faithfully serves the interests of the US \u00ab\u00a0deep state\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A key element of the quasi-constant brainwashing of the average American has always been the regular holding of elections. Never mind that, at least until now, the outcome of these elections made very little difference inside the US and none at all outside, the goal was never to consult the people – the goal has always been to give the illusion of democracy and people-power. Now that the Democrats say that the Russians rigged the elections and the Republicans say that it was the Democrats and their millions of dead voters who tried stealing it, it become rather obvious that these elections were always a joke, a pseudo-democratic \u00ab\u00a0liturgy\u00a0\u00bb, a brainwashing ritual – you name it – but never about anything real.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The emergence of the concept of the 1% can be \u00ab\u00a0credited\u00a0\u00bb to the Obama Administration, since it was during Obama that the entire \u00ab\u00a0Occupy Wall Street\u00a0\u00bb movement took off, but the ultimate unmasking of the viciously evil true face of that 1% must be credited to Hillary with her truly historical confession in which she openly declared that those who oppose her were a \u00ab\u00a0basket of deplorables\u00a0\u00bb. We already knew, thanks to Victoria Nuland, what the AngloZionist leaders thought of the people of Europe, now we know what they think of the people of the USA: exactly the same thing.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The bottom line is this: I don’t think that the moral authority and political credibility of the US have ever been lower than today. Decades of propaganda by Hollywood and the official US media machine have now collapsed and nobody buys that counter-factual nonsense anymore.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Foreign policy suicide<\/strong>: let’s see what options there are to choose from. The Neocons want a war with Russia which the Trump people don’t. The Trump people, however, want, well maybe not a war, although that option is very much on the table, but at least a very serious confrontation with China, North Korea or Iran, and about half of them would also like some kind of confrontation with Russia. There is absolutely nobody, at least at the top, who would dare to suggest that a confrontation or, even worse, a war with China, Iran, North Korea or Russia would be a disaster, a calamity for the USA. In fact, serious people with impressive credentials and a lot of gravitas are discussing these possibilities as if they were real, as it the US could in some sense prevail. This is laughable. Well, no, it is not. But it would be if it wasn’t so frightening and depressing. The truth is very, very different.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n While it is probably not impossible for the United States to prevail, in purely military terms, against the DPRK in a war, the potential risks are nothing short of immense. And I don’t mean the risk posed by the North Korean nukes which, apparently, is also quite real. I mean the risk of starting a war against a country which has Seoul within conventional artillery range, an active duty army of well over one million people and 180,000 special forces. Let us assume for a second that the DPRK has no air force and no navy and an army composed of only 1M+ soldiers, 21k+ artillery pieces and 180k special forces. How do you propose to deal with that threat? If you have an easy, obvious solution, you have watched too many Hollywood movies. You probably also don’t understand the terrain.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But yes, the DPRK also has major wseaknesses and I cannot exclude that the North Korean armed forces would rapidly collapse under a sustained attack by the US and the ROK. I did not say that I believe that this would happen, only that I don’t exclude it. Should that happen, the US might well prevail relatively rapidly, at least in purely military terms. However, please keep in mind that any military operation has to serve a political goal and, in that sense, I cannot imagine any scenario under which the US would walk away from a war against the DPRK with anything remotely resembling a real \u00ab\u00a0victory\u00a0\u00bb. There is a paraphrase of something Ho Chi Minh allegedly told to the French<\/strong><\/a> in the 1940s which I really like. It goes like this:\u00a0\u00bb we kill some of you, you kill a lot of us, and then we win<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0. That is how a war with the DPRK would probably play out. I call this the \u00ab\u00a0American curse\u00a0\u00bb: Americans are very good at killing people, but they are not good at winning wars. Still, in the case of the DPRK there is at least a possibility of a military victory, even if at a potentially huge cost. With Iran, Russia or China there is no such possibility at all: a war with any of them would be a guaranteed disaster (I wrote about a war in Iran here<\/strong><\/a> and about a war with Russia too many times to count). So why is it that even though out of the 4 possible wars, one is a potential disaster and the 3 others are a guaranteed disaster, why is it that these are discussed as if they were potential options?!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The reason for that can be found in the unique mix of crass ignorance and political cowardice of the entire US political class. First, a lot (most?) of US politicians believe in their own silly propaganda about the US armed forces being \u00ab\u00a0the best\u00a0\u00bb in \u00ab\u00a0the world\u00a0\u00bb (no evidence needed!). But even those who are smart enough to realize that this is a load of baloney which nobody outside the US still takes seriously, they know that saying that publicly is political suicide. So they pretend, go along, and keep on repetitively spewing the patriotic mantra about \u00ab\u00a0rah, rah, USA, USA, ‘Merica number one, we are the best\u00a0\u00bb etc. Some figure that since the US spends more on aggression that the rest of the planet combined, that must mean that the US armed forces must be \u00ab\u00a0better\u00a0\u00bb (whatever that means). To the birthplace of \u00ab\u00a0bigger is better\u00a0\u00bb the answer is self-evident. It is also completely wrong.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Eventually, something crazy inevitably happens. Like in Syria were the State Department had one policy, the Pentagon another and the CIA yet another one. The resulting cognitive dissonance is removed by engaging in classical doublethink: \u00ab\u00a0yes, we screwed up over and over, but we are still the best<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0. Ironically, that kind of mindset is at the core of the American inability to learn from past mistakes. If the choice is between an honest evaluation of past operations and political expediency, the latter always prevails (at least amongst civilians, US servicemen are often far more capable of self-critical evaluation, especially in ranks up to Colonel and below, the problem here is that civilians and generals rarely listen to them).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The result is total chaos: the US foreign policy is wholly dependent on the US ability to threaten the use of military force, but the harsh reality is that every country out there which dared to defy Uncle Sam did that only after coming to the conclusion that the US did not have the means to crush it militarily. In other words, only the weak, which are already de-facto US colonies, fear the USA. Or, put differently, the only countries who dare to defy Uncle Sam are the strong ones (that was all quite predictable, but US politicians don’t know about Hegel or dialectics). And just to make it worse, there is no real US foreign policy. What there is is only the sum vector of the different foreign policies desired by various more or less covert \u00ab\u00a0deep state\u00a0\u00bb actors, agencies and individuals. That resulting \u00ab\u00a0sum vector\u00a0\u00bb is inevitably short-term, focuses on a quickfix approach, and unable to take into account any complexity.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n As for the US \u00ab\u00a0diplomacy\u00a0\u00bb it simply doesn’t exist. You don’t need diplomats to deliver demands, bribes, ultimatums and threats. You don’t need educated people. Nor do you need people with any understanding of the \u00ab\u00a0other\u00a0\u00bb. All you need is one arrogant self-enamored bully and one interpreter (since US diplomats don’t speak the local languages either. And why would they?). We saw the most compelling evidence of the total rigor mortis<\/em> of the US diplomatic corps when 51 US \u00ab\u00a0diplomats\u00a0\u00bb demanded that Obama bomb Syria<\/strong><\/a>. The rest of the world could just observe in amazement, sadness, bewilderment and total disgust.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The bottom line is this: there is no \u00ab\u00a0US diplomacy\u00a0\u00bb. The US have simply let that entire field atrophy to the point were it ceased to exist. When so many baffled observers try to understand what the US policy in the Ukraine or Syria is, they are making a mistaken assumption – that there is a US foreign policy to being with. I would argue that the US diplomacy slowly and quietly passed away, sometime after James Baker (the last real US diplomat, and a brilliant one at that).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Military suicide<\/strong>: the US military was never a very impressive one, certainly not when compared to the British, Russian or German ones. But it did have a couple of very strong points including the ability to produce a lot of technical innovations which made it possible to produce new, sometimes quite revolutionary, weapons. And if the US track record on ground operations was rather modest, the US did prove to be a most capable adversary in naval and aerial warfare. I don’t think that it can be denied that for most of the years following WWII the US had the most powerful and sophisticated navy and airforce in the world. Then, gradually, things started getting worse and worse as the costs of the very expensive ships and aircraft shot through the roof while the quality of the produced systems appeared to be gradually degrading. Weapons systems which looked nothing short of awesome in the lab and test grounds proved to be almost useless once they to to their end user on the battlefield. What happened? How did a country which produced the UH-1 Huey or the F-16 suddenly start producing Apaches and F-35s?! The explanation is painfully simple: corruption.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Not only did the US military industrial complex bloat beyond any reasonable size, it also cloaked itself in so many layers of secrecy that massive corruption became inevitable. And when I speak of \u00ab\u00a0massive corruption\u00a0\u00bb I am not talking about millions but billions or even trillions. How? Simple – the Pentagon claimed did not have the accounting tools needed to properly account for the missing money and that the money was therefore not really \u00ab\u00a0missing\u00a0\u00bb. Another trick – no bid contracts. Or contracts which cover all the private contractor’s costs, no matter how high or ridiculous. Desert Storm was a bonanza for the MIC, as was 9\/11 and the GWOT. Billions of dollars got printed out of thin air, distributed (mostly under the cover of national security), hidden (secrecy) and stolen (by everybody in this entire food chain). The feeding frenzy was so extreme that one of my teachers as SAIS<\/strong><\/a> admitted, off the record of course, that he had never seen a weapons system he did not like or which he did not want to purchase. This man, whom I shall not name, was a former director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Yes, you read that right. He was in charge of DIS-armament. You can imagine what the folks in charge of armament (no \u00ab\u00a0dis) were thinking…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n With the stratospheric rise of corruption, the kind of US general which had to be promoted went from fighting men who remembered Vietnam (where they often lost family members, relatives and friends) to \u00ab\u00a0ass-kissing little chickenshits<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0\u00bb like David Petraeus. In less than half a century US generals went from combat men, to managers, to politicians. And it is against this lackluster background that a rather unimpressive personality like General James Mattis can appear, at least to some, like a good candidate for Secretary of Defense.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Bottom line: the US armed forces are fantastically expensive and yet not particularly well-trained, well-equipped or well-commanded. And while they still are much more capable than the many European militaries (which are a joke), they are most definitely not the kind of armed forces needed to impose and maintain a world hegemony. The good news for the US is that the US armed forces are more than adequate to defend the US against any hypothetical attack. But as the backbone of the Empire – they are close to useless.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
The Empire Should be Placed on Suicide Watch<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n