Today on Blogcritics
Home » Yankee Doodle’s World Turned Upside Down

Yankee Doodle’s World Turned Upside Down

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It isn't so funny when political satire collides with reality. In a February 14 spoof, The Onion posts the "claim" that Bush Cuts Off Diplomatic Relations With Congress. Bush feels that Congress has "no concern for my national interests, and have left me no choice."

But things that sound like they should be satirebut aren't – are being issued lately by the Republicans,  which prompts relatively sane folks like Jim Wallis to note in Time magazine that "Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem."

Certainly, The Anti-Defamation League isn't chortling over two wild and crazy guys – Georgia State Rep. Ben Bridges and Texas State Rep. Warren Chisum – who were distributing a memo written by Bridges which attributes the Big Bang theory to Kabbalah, or Jewish mysticism. Fair Education Foundation President Marshall Hall says he was authorized by Bridges to distribute the memo to legislators in several states (including California and Texas), but it sounds like he tends to agree with Wallis about the abuse of religion (only when performed by others, natch!), claiming that neither he nor his wife – who was Bridges' campaign manager – are anti-Semitic. Hall complains, "I think [the Anti-Defamation League] tar people with that brush a little too readily."

Ah, so! You can dish it out, but you can't take it, eh Mr. Hall? It's my humble opinion that you personify P. M. Carpenter's lament that "We are becoming a nation of idiots. It's not necessarily a matter of a majoritarian idiocracy, but it does seem that the idiots are disproportionately in charge of our collective future."

What else can one say about the specious argument that opposition to the planned expansion of the war in Southwest Asia to include Iran is intended to protect it, as White House Press Secretary Tony Snow recently claimed? It isn't like there is absolutely no good reason to oppose the Bush Gang in their latest labor, militarily dominating the world's oil supply for the sole benefit of Americans – the greedy 4.58% of the world's population who guzzle 25% of the total production [PDF]. We can't continue to defend that energy avarice. Most knowledgeable experts agree that there is no military solution for Iran, insisting that such a course would prove "disastrous for the United States", and which may well use up what non-nuclear national military might remains.

But there is no way the White House will listen to reason. Because it now looks like the entire Congress may at some point stop playing with non-binding measures and take up bills with more bite; there are reports beginning to circulate that The Onion's satire may well be taking solid form in our all-too-real world. With Bush "struggling for relevancy" while facing 71% of Americans who think Bush "a lame duck" and of whom 58% "wish the Bush presidency were simply over", it looks as though  the Oval Office is about to abandon the Constitution, by bypassing the Congress and ruling effectively by fiat.

Much conservative pressure to do this is clearly an attempt by the Toppers (those whose incomes lounge in the top 1% category) to protect their generous tax advantages from Senatorial review. This alone should provide plenty of incentive for Dubya to act in defense of his "Havemore base", but the same methods can also quell rising unrest over growing evidence that his "War On Terror" is an abject failure. (Even American intelligence officials grimly admit that Al Qaeda is again growing stronger in Afghanistan – the first "democracy" on the Bush "mission accomplished" list – despite more than five years in a military and political campaign to weaken it.)

It also doesn't help that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, openly makes statements that indicate we aren't being told the truth about the Administration's failing democratization effort in Iraq, any more than of the similar effort in Afghanistan. Information about actual events in Iraq isn't going to improve, with the Baghdad correspondent for McClatchy News, Mohammed al Dulaimy, declaring, "I think it is about time to say I have had enough … it isn't going to get any better." 

Another War?

And these PNAC Petroleum Pirate Posse Poltroons want to start yet another future failure of a war??? They ought to be impeached!!!

And yet, despite all of their other forecasting inadequacies, they seem to have thought ahead on this very daunting prospect. The numerous terminations of what has to be the most seriously dedicated US Attorneys in America has to be seen as an attempt to avoid the consequences of their illegal actions. By terminating these seven (one report says another "voluntary resignation" is pending, making the total eight) US Attorneys is intended to send a message to one specific US Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, whose prosecution of Dick Cheney's lackey Scooter Libby threatens to expose the Bush White House to further investigations which could lead to impeachment.  

Since  the terminations of other US Attorneys around the nation evidently haven't registered with Fitzgerald, the White House is yanking the leashes of their media pit bulls as a less-subtle means of making their point. Even this achieves the Oval Office goal. I doubt even waking up next to a horse's head would deter Mr. Fitzgerald from the swift completion of his appointed rounds, so there's no need for this farce to maim or injure an innocent equine. That advice is freely offered in case the Bush dirty tricks squad is contemplating just such an action.

But I digress.

One action they are desperate enough to pursue is positive distraction, – offering up "evidence" of a major oil discovery in Sunni regions of Iraq as a means to stifle restive and hostile militias in that region. The unfortunate fact of this little-known "discovery" is that it will in no way come close to matching the value of the reserves held by the other Iraqi factions. So the Sunnis are still left sucking hind wellhead and begging arms alms from their wealthy cousins, the Saudis.

But the Saudis face their own inconvenient truths. Matthew Simmons, an industry banker, shocked the oil world when he questioned whether Saudi Arabia would be able to continue to expand production at the very same time that Wood Mackenzie, an Edinburgh-based oil industry consultancy, calculated that much of the future production expansion is likely to come from expensive and environmentally damaging unconventional sources within 15 years. If this projection holds up, the Saudis would need every dollar, euro, and riyal to maintain their currently all-too-lavish lifestyles. There won't be any left over in the Wahhabi cupboard to care for Mother Bandar's poor little Anbar doggies. That will only mean that We, the People of the United States of America, will be expected to foot the energy trough feed bill with our blood and our bounty, and we already aren't very thrilled with that prospect as it is currently configured.

The White House certainly knows this. That is why they appear too willing to try out The Onion's idea, something which they have already initiated with the signing of Executive Order 12866 last month. This executive ukase intends to put political appointees in charge of federal regulatory agencies and limit the ability of Congress to perform its duties as the deliberative body of our government, such as it now is. With the White House giving itself much greater control over "the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy", the United States no longer enjoys Constitutional government. It has become that dictatorship that Bush repeatedly claimed would be "a whole lot easier" to run – provided he was the dictator – than the republic the Founding Fathers established almost 220 years ago.

The longer it goes, the worse it grows. It's not funny, and I'm not laughing. There is but one conclusion to draw: It may soon prove to be time to follow Thomas Jefferson's sagacious arboreal advice, although whether we do so figuratively or literally matters little at this point. The Republic is in danger from within and must be defended.

Powered by

About pessimist

  • Dave Nalle

    Interesting indeed how such a pile of garbage and ludicrous links can end with a concluding paragraph I can actually agree with.

    The Republic IS in danger from within, and this article appears to be on the side of those who are threatening it, including some of the groups you link to.

    But the funniest thing in the links is the multiple references to the WaPo combined with the link to an article deriding the paper as an administration mouthpiece.


  • Baronius

    Dave, tell me I’m not the only one who sees the humor in this article being written by “Realist”. It’s a series of bad assumptions and – no, it’s not a “series”; that implies sequence. It’s impressionism, where each little dab of color represents a crazy distortion of fact. It’s the kind of nonsense I used to think in the late Clinton years. I thought that everything was a sign of something terrible and hidden. I wonder, though, if my thinking was ever quite as messed-up as this.

  • Aku

    On par with other works by the Realist. My personal favorite was when he fantasized about Russia and China teaming up to break the US. I am starting to wonder if this is some sort of clever satire, taking the most paranoid in the Left’s media and taking it a step beyond.

  • Dave Nalle

    Impressionism? I thought it was just a string of links he likes because they criticize the administration strung together with an incoherent narrative and the pretext of a ‘theme’.


  • MBD

    The Last Days of Yankee Doodle

    Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America’s version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial “footprint” and the militarism that grows with it.

    It is not easy, however, to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records available to the public on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department’s annual inventories from 2002 to 2005 of real property it owns around the world, the Base Structure Report, there has been an immense churning in the numbers of installations.

    The total of America’s military bases in other people’s countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737. Reflecting massive deployments to Iraq and the pursuit of President Bush’s strategy of preemptive war, the trend line for numbers of overseas bases continues to go up.

    Interestingly enough, the thirty-eight large and medium-sized American facilities spread around the globe in 2005 — mostly air and naval bases for our bombers and fleets — almost exactly equals Britain’s thirty-six naval bases and army garrisons at its imperial zenith in 1898. The Roman Empire at its height in 117 AD required thirty-seven major bases to police its realm from Britannia to Egypt, from Hispania to Armenia. Perhaps the optimum number of major citadels and fortresses for an imperialist aspiring to dominate the world is somewhere between thirty-five and forty.

    Using data from fiscal year 2005, the Pentagon bureaucrats calculated that its overseas bases were worth at least $127 billion — surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic products of most countries — and an estimated $658.1 billion for all of them, foreign and domestic (a base’s “worth” is based on a Department of Defense estimate of what it would cost to replace it). During fiscal 2005, the military high command deployed to our overseas bases some 196,975 uniformed personnel as well as an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employed an additional 81,425 locally hired foreigners.

    The worldwide total of U.S. military personnel in 2005, including those based domestically, was 1,840,062 supported by an additional 473,306 Defense Department civil service employees and 203,328 local hires. Its overseas bases, according to the Pentagon, contained 32,327 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and 16,527 more that it leased. The size of these holdings was recorded in the inventory as covering 687,347 acres overseas and 29,819,492 acres worldwide, making the Pentagon easily one of the world’s largest landlords.

    These numbers, although staggeringly big, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2005 Base Structure Report fails, for instance, to mention any garrisons in Kosovo (or Serbia, of which Kosovo is still officially a province) — even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel built in 1999 and maintained ever since by the KBR corporation (formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root), a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation of Houston.

    The report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq (106 garrisons as of May 2005), Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, even though the U.S. military has established colossal base structures in the Persian Gulf and Central Asian areas since 9/11. By way of excuse, a note in the preface says that “facilities provided by other nations at foreign locations” are not included, although this is not strictly true. The report does include twenty sites in Turkey, all owned by the Turkish government and used jointly with the Americans. The Pentagon continues to omit from its accounts most of the $5 billion worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases overseas, but no one — possibly not even the Pentagon — knows the exact number for sure.

    In some cases, foreign countries themselves have tried to keep their U.S. bases secret, fearing embarrassment if their collusion with American imperialism were revealed. In other instances, the Pentagon seems to want to play down the building of facilities aimed at dominating energy sources, or, in a related situation, retaining a network of bases that would keep Iraq under our hegemony regardless of the wishes of any future Iraqi government. The U.S. government tries not to divulge any information about the bases we use to eavesdrop on global communications, or our nuclear deployments, which, as William Arkin, an authority on the subject, writes, “[have] violated its treaty obligations. The U.S. was lying to many of its closest allies, even in NATO, about its nuclear designs. Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, hundreds of bases, and dozens of ships and submarines existed in a special secret world of their own with no rational military or even ‘deterrence’ justification.”

    In Jordan, to take but one example, we have secretly deployed up to five thousand troops in bases on the Iraqi and Syrian borders. (Jordan has also cooperated with the CIA in torturing prisoners we deliver to them for “interrogation.”) Nonetheless, Jordan continues to stress that it has no special arrangements with the United States, no bases, and no American military presence.

    The country is formally sovereign but actually a satellite of the United States and has been so for at least the past ten years. Similarly, before our withdrawal from Saudi Arabia in 2003, we habitually denied that we maintained a fleet of enormous and easily observed B-52 bombers in Jeddah because that was what the Saudi government demanded. So long as military bureaucrats can continue to enforce a culture of secrecy to protect themselves, no one will know the true size of our baseworld, least of all the elected representatives of the American people.

    In 2005, deployments at home and abroad were in a state of considerable flux. This was said to be caused both by a long overdue change in the strategy for maintaining our global dominance and by the closing of surplus bases at home. In reality, many of the changes seemed to be determined largely by the Bush administration’s urge to punish nations and domestic states that had not supported its efforts in Iraq and to reward those that had.

    Thus, within the United States, bases were being relocated to the South, to states with cultures, as the Christian Science Monitor put it, “more tied to martial traditions” than the Northeast, the northern Middle West, or the Pacific Coast. According to a North Carolina businessman gloating over his new customers, “The military is going where it is wanted and valued most.”
    In part, the realignment revolved around the Pentagon’s decision to bring home by 2007 or 2008 two army divisions from Germany — the First Armored Division and the First Infantry Division — and one brigade (3,500 men) of the Second Infantry Division from South Korea (which, in 2005, was officially rehoused at Fort Carson, Colorado). So long as the Iraq insurgency continues, the forces involved are mostly overseas and the facilities at home are not ready for them (nor is there enough money budgeted to get them ready).

    Nonetheless, sooner or later, up to 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members will have to be accommodated within the United States. The attendant 2005 “base closings” in the United States are actually a base consolidation and enlargement program with tremendous infusions of money and customers going to a few selected hub areas. At the same time, what sounds like a retrenchment in the empire abroad is really proving to be an exponential growth in new types of bases — without dependents and the amenities they would require — in very remote areas where the U.S. military has never been before.

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was obvious to anyone who thought about it that the huge concentrations of American military might in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea were no longer needed to meet possible military threats. There were not going to be future wars with the Soviet Union or any country connected to any of those places.

    In 1991, the first Bush administration should have begun decommissioning or redeploying redundant forces; and, in fact, the Clinton administration did close some bases in Germany, such as those protecting the Fulda Gap, once envisioned as the likeliest route for a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. But nothing was really done in those years to plan for the strategic repositioning of the American military outside the United States.

    By the end of the 1990s, the neoconservatives were developing their grandiose theories to promote overt imperialism by the “lone superpower” — including preventive and preemptive unilateral military action, spreading democracy abroad at the point of a gun, obstructing the rise of any “near-peer” country or bloc of countries that might challenge U.S. military supremacy, and a vision of a “democratic” Middle East that would supply us with all the oil we wanted. A component of their grand design was a redeployment and streamlining of the military. The initial rationale was for a program of transformation that would turn the armed forces into a lighter, more agile, more high-tech military, which, it was imagined, would free up funds that could be invested in imperial policing.

    What came to be known as “defense transformation” first began to be publicly bandied about during the 2000 presidential election campaign. Then 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq intervened. In August 2002, when the whole neocon program began to be put into action, it centered above all on a quick, easy war to incorporate Iraq into the empire. By this time, civilian leaders in the Pentagon had become dangerously overconfident because of what they perceived as America’s military brilliance and invincibility as demonstrated in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda — a strategy that involved reigniting the Afghan civil war through huge payoffs to Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance warlords and the massive use of American airpower to support their advance on Kabul.
    In August 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld unveiled his “1-4-2-1 defense strategy” to replace the Clinton era’s plan for having a military capable of fighting two wars — in the Middle East and Northeast Asia — simultaneously. Now, war planners were to prepare to defend the United States while building and assembling forces capable of “deterring aggression and coercion” in four “critical regions”: Europe, Northeast Asia (South Korea and Japan), East Asia (the Taiwan Strait), and the Middle East, be able to defeat aggression in two of these regions simultaneously, and “win decisively” (in the sense of “regime change” and occupation) in one of those conflicts “at a time and place of our choosing.”As the military analyst William M. Arkin commented, “[With] American military forces … already stretched to the limit, the new strategy goes far beyond preparing for reactive contingencies and reads more like a plan for picking fights in new parts of the world.”

    A seemingly easy three-week victory over Saddam Hussein’s forces in the spring of 2003 only reconfirmed these plans. The U.S. military was now thought to be so magnificent that it could accomplish any task assigned to it. The collapse of the Baathist regime in Baghdad also emboldened Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to use “transformation” to penalize nations that had been, at best, lukewarm about America’s unilateralism — Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Turkey — and to reward those whose leaders had welcomed Operation Iraqi Freedom, including such old allies as Japan and Italy but also former communist countries such as Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. The result was the Department of Defense’s Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy, known informally as the “Global Posture Review.”

    President Bush first mentioned it in a statement on November 21, 2003, in which he pledged to “realign the global posture” of the United States. He reiterated the phrase and elaborated on it on August 16, 2004, in a speech to the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Cincinnati. Because Bush’s Cincinnati address was part of the 2004 presidential election campaign, his comments were not taken very seriously at the time. While he did say that the United States would reduce its troop strength in Europe and Asia by 60,000 to 70,000, he assured his listeners that this would take a decade to accomplish — well beyond his term in office — and made a series of promises that sounded more like a reenlistment pitch than a statement of strategy.

    “Over the coming decade, we’ll deploy a more agile and more flexible force, which means that more of our troops will be stationed and deployed from here at home. We’ll move some of our troops and capabilities to new locations, so they can surge quickly to deal with unexpected threats. … It will reduce the stress on our troops and our military families. … See, our service members will have more time on the home front, and more predictability and fewer moves over a career. Our military spouses will have fewer job changes, greater stability, more time for their kids and to spend with their families at home.”

    On September 23, 2004, however, Secretary Rumsfeld disclosed the first concrete details of the plan to the Senate Armed Services Committee. With characteristic grandiosity, he described it as “the biggest re-structuring of America’s global forces since 1945.” Quoting then undersecretary Douglas Feith, he added, “During the Cold War we had a strong sense that we knew where the major risks and fights were going to be, so we could deploy people right there. We’re operating now [with] an entirely different concept. We need to be able to do [the] whole range of military operations, from combat to peacekeeping, anywhere in the world pretty quickly.”

    Though this may sound plausible enough, in basing terms it opens up a vast landscape of diplomatic and bureaucratic minefields that Rumsfeld’s militarists surely underestimated. In order to expand into new areas, the Departments of State and Defense must negotiate with the host countries such things as Status of Forces Agreements, or SOFAs, which are discussed in detail in the next chapter. In addition, they must conclude many other required protocols, such as access rights for our aircraft and ships into foreign territory and airspace, and Article 98 Agreements. The latter refer to article 98 of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, which allows countries to exempt U.S. citizens on their territory from the ICC’s jurisdiction.

    Such immunity agreements were congressionally mandated by the American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002, even though the European Union holds that they are illegal. Still other necessary accords are acquisitions and cross-servicing agreements or ACSAs, which concern the supply and storage of jet fuel, ammunition, and so forth; terms of leases on real property; levels of bilateral political and economic aid to the United States (so-called host-nation support); training and exercise arrangements (Are night landings allowed? Live firing drills?); and environmental pollution liabilities.

    When the United States is not present in a country as its conqueror or military savior, as it was in Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War II and in South Korea after the 1953 Korean War armistice, it is much more difficult to secure the kinds of agreements that allow the Pentagon to do anything it wants and that cause a host nation to pick up a large part of the costs of doing so. When not based on conquest, the structure of the American empire of bases comes to look exceedingly fragile.

    The above is excerpted from Chalmers Johnson’s new book, “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic” (Metropolitan Books).

  • Aku

    Chalmers is just a Noam wanttabe. If I wante to read his book I would have bought it.

  • MBD

    What is the opposite of a “Noam wanttabe”?

  • Arch Conservative

    All I know is that there are a lot of angry leftists today after the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees in Guantanamo who are pretty much terrorirsts or terrorist enablers for all intents and purposes are not allowed the same rights to the US legal system as citizens are.

  • MBD

    “All I know is…(the following)”

    And that sums it up for you.

  • Aku

    “What is the opposite of a “Noam wanttabe”?”

    Mmmm good question. Milton Freedman perhaps? Gerge W. Bush?

  • Baronius

    Wow, that book looks awful.

  • Clavos

    Boring, anyway…

  • Arch Conservative

    “What is the opposite of a “Noam wanttabe”?”

    Well considering I can’t stand Noam the commie gnome, here are a few people that I admire and respect….maybe you will find the anti Noam among them…..

    Ronald Reagan (of course)
    Pat Buchanan
    Thomas Sowell
    William F. Buckley
    Phyllis Schlafly

  • MBD

    For one, Pat Buchanan must also be a “Noam wanttabe” imsofar as what Chalmers has written here.

    I can’t believe that the others would not agree as well.

    Tell Aku.

  • MBD

    “Gerge W. Bush?”

    Without a doubt.

  • MBD

    The history of true conservatives is consistent with what Chalmers espouses. What we have today is a bastardized form of conservatism that is not consistent with its roots.

  • methuselah

    Lots of meat here, in the articles of Realist and MBD. Worth researching, for the serious reader, anyhow.

    I suppose that Serious Authors are expected to respond in kind to the usual japery from the peanut gallery. For which one may want to follow the example of the many foreign authors who have grown contemptuous of US military and economic might now that the ineptness and impotence of the Bush administration have been exposed for the whole world to see.

    For example: Pirate Bay

  • Aku

    “The history of true conservatives is consistent with what Chalmers espouses. What we have today is a bastardized form of conservatism that is not consistent with its roots.”

    Ideologies grow and change. It would not be appropriate to be ideological clones of Burke in our current age. If you are saying that old “gerge,” to coin my own phrase, is not a conservative, many people would agree. Including myself. His ideas resemble a mix of Nixon and Wilson.

    Pat’s conservatism seems to be more of a pre-WWII type. Sen. Smoot and Representative Hawley would definitely be proud of old Pat. In any case Pat’s work, A Republic, Not an Empire, covers similar ground to the Chalmers excerpt.

  • Aku

    “Lots of meat here, in the articles of Realist and MBD. Worth researching, for the serious reader, anyhow.

    I suppose that Serious Authors are expected to respond in kind to the usual japery from the peanut gallery.”

    It must be quite a burden to be so serious. How do you put up with it all? Scotch, Brandy?

  • MBD

    Try relaxing with a vodka martini. It beats both scotch and brandy.

    It also helps to read a good book on true conservatism.

  • Dave Nalle

    Thank god I’m not a ‘true conservative’. I’m pompous enough without a dose of whatever it is that MBD is drinking.


  • Christopher Rose

    MBD: The idea is that you post your own thoughts here. Posting long excerpts from a copyrighted book is a BAD idea. Please don’t do so again.


    The Comments Editor