What Would Global Capital Do Without an Army?

As I wrote previously, the political left cannot meaningfully criticize or imagine alternatives to the malignant structures of global capital. It is in a state of complete agreement with the political right that nothing should fundamentally challenge existing power structures, concentrations of capital, and associated economic institutions.

Part of the consensus (also mentioned previously), holds that absolute military control of as many of the earth’s resources as possible should be maintained no matter what the cost. And why not? The cost is borne by the tax victims who spend an increasing amount of every work day paying for the war machine; by the uneducated (after 12 years of state education) who are paid to kill strangers and bear the psychological consequences thereafter–assuming they live; and, of course by the innumerable individuals who have the misfortune to live within cruise-missile’s distance of a mine, a well, or a deposit that will bring riches to somebody–just not them.

The victims of the enforcement arm of global capital are entirely distinct from the few thousand direct beneficiaries world-wide. It is clearly in the interest of global capital to garrison the planet to defend against any challenge to their ownership of everything.

Yesterday, Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton had a public forum to discuss downsizing the imperial army.

“Very simply, it would result in hollowing out the force,” he said, alluding to reductions made in the aftermath of the Vietnam War that left Army units undermanned and ill-equipped. “It would terribly weaken our ability to respond to the threats in the world.”

Given the understanding above, it goes without remarking that democrats are against meaningful decreases in the military. The hack writing the story fills in the details of Panetta’s allusion by positing that “Army units [were left] undermanned and ill-equipped” in the 1970s. For what? Which foreign power overran those undermanned and ill-equipped units and occupied the homeland? Where’s the list of American victims left unprotected? What battles were lost? What threats is he talking about?

All of Western Europe and the Pacific remained fully garrisoned. All puppet states were armed against their populations. Was it Guatamala? Nicaragua? Was the fact that local political movements were able to gain toeholds on the fringes of the global plantation that lead to the conclusion that “our interests” were at risk?

The idea that any country or any conceivable coalition of countries could ever get a single foot soldier onto the North American continent with aggressive intent is absurd. It’s the basest part of the reptilian brain that believes such dangers are out there–a modern day Genghis Khan sweeping down from the Canadian steppes–laughable.

Oh, and recall that the alternative to reducing a military presence in, say, Germany or Japan[1] is cutting the legs out from under social security and
medicare–two programs which people have been stolen from their whole lives to fund. These are the fucking liberals! They’re worried more about their goddamn occupying armies than returning to the elderly the “pension” and medical care that they’ve spent a lifetime paying for!

“It [the threat of budget cuts] does cast a pall over our ability to project the kind of security interests that are in America’s interests,” she said. “This is not about the Defense Department or the State Department. … This is about the United States of America. And we need to have a responsible conversation about how we are going to prepare ourselves for the future.”

The Big Lie is that “security interests” or “America’s interests” are anything but the inverse of the interests of 99% of the people who live under the rule of these sociopaths. Our interests [2] are not being in debt to global finance; not having homes taken away by global banking; not being jailed for non-crimes; being free to conduct peaceful activities without bureaucratic overhead; freedom in general really; freedom from the arbitrary whims of lunatics like Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton–freedom from being human fuel for the engine global capital. How nice would that be?

  1. [1] Or any of the other 130 countries garrisoned by US soldiers.
  2. [2] With full awareness of the risks of speaking for a collective.
  1. Our interests [2] are not being in debt to global finance; not having homes taken away by global banking; not being jailed for non-crimes; being free to conduct peaceful activities without bureaucratic overhead; freedom in general really; freedom from the arbitrary whims of lunatics like Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton–freedom from being human fuel for the engine global capital

    Yeah!

    I think you’re safe speaking for a collective — there are a small minority of Americans who are benefiting from the current priorities, but they are such a small minority that I think a majority of Americans would agree with what I quoted from your entry.

    • luis
    • August 18th, 2011

    *gasp*
    Jad, how dare you criticize our troops! How un-American of you!

    I would love to trace the origins of this inextricable tie between the military and our national identity. Consequently, any critique of anything to do with the military, regardless of how thoughtful, is labeled blatant anti-Americanism and is political suicide for any politician that that dares. Ron Paul has said some encouraging things about our imperial military policies but, for reasons you’ve already indicated, is unanimously dismissed as a whack-job by both the right and the left. Ron Paul is republican… from Texas. Where is the liberal equivalent?!?! This two party system is lame.

  2. Luis — supposedly, it’s Dennis Kucinich Supposedly. If you ask a “progressive.”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree