Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Mr. Y is no Mr. X

An essay entitled A National Strategic Narrative by Mr. Y is the talk of the town.   Mr. Y of course, is a pseudonym for the person who penned the article.

The name is inspired by Mr. X, the author of a memorable 1946 State Department telegram.  Mr. X was later revealed to be George F. Kennan, and his seminal telegram, later published in Foreign Affairs,  was an early warning about the Soviet threat to the Free World.  But any comparison between X and Y is strictly alphabetical.  That's because, unlike Mr. X,  Mr. Y's intention is not to warn America of a new foreign threat.  In fact, it's unclear what Mr. Y's true motivations might be. 

Foreign Policy Magazine describes the article:
The piece was written by two senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a "personal" capacity, but it is clear that it would not have seen the light of day without a measure of official approval. Its findings are revelatory, and they deserve to be read and appreciated not only by every lawmaker in Congress, but by every American citizen.
The narrative argues that the United States is fundamentally getting it wrong when it comes to setting its priorities, particularly with regard to the budget and how Americans as a nation use their resources more broadly. The report says Americans are overreacting to Islamic extremism, underinvesting in their youth, and failing to embrace the sense of competition and opportunity that made America a world power. The United States has been increasingly consumed by seeing the world through the lens of threat, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness, and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the modern world.

Courageously, the authors make the case that America continues to rely far too heavily on its military as the primary tool for how it engages the world.
CNN comments:
Take a look a the report and then, if you feel so moved, write your congressperson about it here.  [DoF urges you to write your congressperson to complain about Mr Y.  After all, your hard-earned tax dollars pay his salary.]
The United States Department of Fear has issued an Official Statement in response to the article:
It's one thing when the liberal media journalists or bloggers pen rants, but we expect better from people paid to serve us. We need to determine the identity of the authors of the article. They should be fired or possibly prosecuted for insubordination. In a world plagued by terrorism, drugs, and illegal migration, we simply cannot tolerate defense department employees undermining the defense establishment. 
Rumor has it that the article may be part of a sophisticated U.S. intelligence operation.  The idea is that when senior leaders give the appearance of tolerating radical thoughts, government employees who are not sufficiently committed to the agenda will speak out in favor of the message.   In other word, perhaps it's part of a strategy to smoke the liberals out.  

Others have suggested that the article may be someone's idea of a belated April Fool's joke. We think that's highly unlikely because the article concerns a topic most Americans know better than to joke about (certainly not around DoF, and DoD is not so different).  To suggest that America should cut back on defense not 10 years after the worst attack on the Homeland in our history is not funny.  To do so in view of the dangers we face and the various wars we are fighting (and at some risk of losing) abroad is not amusing.   Rather, it's profoundly disrespectful towards the national security establishment.     

Psychological perceptions basis for "Pervasive Insecurity"

The National Intelligence Council, which does the long-term thinking for our nation's 17 intelligence agencies, recently issued an important unclassified report entitled, "Mapping the Global Future."

The section entitled "Pervasive Insecurity" is well worth reading:
We foresee a more pervasive sense of insecurity, which may be as much based on psychological perceptions as physical threats, by 2020.  The psychological aspects, which we have addressed earlier in this paper, include concerns over job security as well as fears revolving around migration among both host populations and migrants.  

Terrorism and internal conflicts could interrupt the process of globalization by significantly increasing the security costs...
SecFear  Malcolm P. Stag III, interviewed by FoxNews about the report, commented: "DoF is dedicated to the proposition that psychological perceptions as much as real world events create a sense of insecurity."  Sec Fear added, "An atmosphere characterized by pervasive insecurity provides the most profitable context for any public appraisal of the security needs of the United States."

You can read the entire report here.

Monday, April 25, 2011

The case for Donald Trump

Even if Donald Trump's bid for the presidency is not successful, his contribution to political thought in America cannot be underestimated.   Trump is the first presidential candidate to explain to Americans that military spending and empire are not the problem, but the solution to our economic troubles.   

There's a lot to like about superstar capitalist Donald Trump,  an American legend who has committed his life to building a profitable business empire for himself.    Trump recently told FoxNews that he's "a good businessman" who has "done a great job and made a lot of great decisions."  Those are inspiring words.

Donald Trump also told FoxNews that he has "great values."  Trump's values include high military spending and empire building. 
Donald Trump understands that the democratic approach to empire-building is failing America. It's discouraging when we "free" a country from one dictator (Hussein, Mohammed Omar), only to watch them fall into misrule under new leaders who are susceptible to the influence of our enemies (Iran).      Trump's idea is that America should go in for the resources and stay there until we've got our fair share.    From the Fox interview, it sounds as if Trump would favor taking out Iraq's Iran-friendly government and putting an American in charge (from about 3:20 13:20).   Elsewhere Trump has indicated that he would take Libya's oil.

Trump realizes that supporting American men and women in uniform is the key to building and maintaining tomorrow's more profitable American empire. Therefore, Trump is forthright about the need to increase military spending.  In Trump's own words:  "You have the military.  Our military is great. The other thing I'd do is I wouldn't cut the military, in fact I would increase the military.  I hate when they say 'I would cut the military.'"  (18:45)

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Ominous Standard & Poors debt warning

Standard and Poors has issued a warning about the US debt.  

In a conference call with Treasury this morning, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III called the warning "ominous."

The Department of Fear's advice to Americans is not to question S&P.  As SecFear pointed out, in its entire 105 year-long history, S&P only ever made one mistake that we know about.

Trust S&P.  Call your Congressman.   Demand that he vote to cut social programs --before its too late.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

What is Expeditionary Economics?

"Expeditionary Economics" is a new term for an old and profitable idea.
On Wednesday, Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, gave an important speech to the United States Military Academy at West Point.   Donohue spoke at some length about "Expeditionary Economics"--an old idea that created a lot of buzz after an article with the title appeared in Foreign Affairs last year.  Donohue:
The idea of “expeditionary economics” involves training officers to apply economic principles with a smart and entrepreneurial spirit while also taking account of local circumstances. It recognizes that it takes more than troops and weapons to establish peaceful, stable, democratic societies. It takes hope and opportunity that only free enterprise and a strong private sector can provide.
...we’ve been involved in expeditionary economics long before the term was coined. The Chamber has an affiliate called the Center for International Private Enterprise, also known as CIPE. Through CIPE, we are working to build the capacity of local business organizations and promote the kind of reforms needed for entrepreneurs to thrive.

One of our key tools is a program that the U.S. Chamber has used for many years. It’s called the national business agenda—a set of legal and regulatory reforms needed to strengthen the business environment.

Over the last several years, CIPE has led the way with local groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries to help them push for reform and build their economies.
DoF comment:  Iraq is where this concept was most profitably applied.
Ultimately, it’s essential for both the military and the private sector to work in partnership with the people of these countries to create stability and prosperity. The Chamber and the American business community are strong supporters of expeditionary economics. We pledge to work with the military to advance this important concept.
DoF comment:  What is Expeditionary Economics?   In theory, the concept makes explicit what has always been an implicit goal of US foreign policy: exporting American-style capitalism to developing countries.  In practice, Expeditionary Economics describes how US military intervention can profit well-connected American businesspeople.  Our wars open markets, allowing private corporations to purchase formerly state-owned resources and formerly state-run infrastructure.  By networking with the US military, American firms can literally "seize" business opportunities abroad.  Ultimately, American military officers practicing Expeditionary Economics become the "eyes and ears" of the Chamber and its members throughout the war zones of the developing world.

Investors profit when corporations partner with the military.   Expeditionary Economics is just a new term to describe the fruition of this partnership.  Yet Expeditionary Economics cannot thrive in a vacuum.  Unless America continues to intervene abroad militarily, unless we continue to invest in a strong defense, one day there might be no place for America to practice Expeditionary Economics.    The United States Department of Fear lays the necessary foundation for Expeditionary Economics by keeping the American People alert to possible dangers.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is another Kinza Khaldun

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it," goes the time-honored saying.  Compare the profiles of two terrorists:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 
  1. Allegedly planned the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.
  2. CIA water-boarded him 183 times. He survives.
  3. Liberals wanted him brought back to New York City to face trial in a civilian court.
Kinza Khaldun
  1. Attacked the Empire State Building in 1933.
  2. US Air Force flew 183 sorties against him (video).  He survives.
  3. Some misguided liberals brought him to New York City in the 1970s but he broke lose, attacking the World Trade Center.
The profile of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is eerily similar to that of Kinza Khaldun (the Arabic birth name of the terrorist better known as "King Kong").    Documentary evidence, including video and photographs of the terrorists, makes this abundantly clear.

After SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III showed the above documentary to the Joint Chiefs and Congressional leaders, there was unanimous agreement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed must not be brought to New York to face trial in a civilian court. Our wise and prudent leaders realized the risks were not worth it.  They know another Kinza Khaldun when they see one.

After the screening, SecFear said, "We are all horrified by the resemblance of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the dreaded Kinza Khaldun.  Surely the time has come for the United States to scrap the remaining vestiges of its ancient legal system."  SecFear noted that the president's vision of a new legal framework will ensure that terrorist suspects can be easily convicted--along with anyone suspected of having assisted a terrorist in any conceivable way.

Awaiting military tribunal, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed remains at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.  President Obama is holding KSM in the same large cage that President Herbert Hoover originally had built for the detainment of Kinza Khaldun.

Mayor Bloomberg estimated that holding a trial for KSM in New York City would have cost taxpayers at least $1 billion (the cost of keeping the US Air Force on standby, rental of a cargo ship big enough to transport KSM and his cage to NYC, etc.).   Needless to say, were KSM to have escaped custody while in New York City the cost of repairing the damage after a rampage would likely have exceeded the mayor's cost estimate by a factor of ten.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Kinza Khaldun (aka King Kong)

Practically indistinguishable.