CLEAR LAKE, Iowa — Chris Petersen, a
third-generation hog farmer who says "I bleed rural" and tears up at
the fate of family and friends, has found a way to keep his small holding
going, and avoid the exodus that so many are making. His grown son and daughter
But meanwhile, Petersen is at war with the big
companies that he says are destroying the culture of smaller places like Clear
are going down the same road as the Russians with the collective
farm system," he told me yesterday. "There, the government
controlled it. Here, it's the corporations."
The big picture: While his is a dramatic
rendering of the state of American agriculture, Petersen has a point: across
industries, the U.S. has become a country of monopolies.
companies control about 80% of mobile
telecoms. Three have 95% of credit cards. Four have 70% of airline flights
within the U.S. Google handles 60% of search. The list goes on. (h/t The Economist)
agriculture, four companies control
66% of U.S. hogs slaughtered in 2015, 85% of the steer, and half the
chickens, according to the
Department of Agriculture. (h/t Open Markets Institute)
just four companies control 85% of U.S. corn seed
sales, up from 60% in 2000, and 75% of soy bean seed, a jump from about
half, the Agriculture
Department says. Far larger than anyone — the American
companies DowDuPont and Monsanto.
have reported, some economists say this concentration of market power is
gumming up the economy, and is largely to blame for decades of flat wages and
weak productivity growth.
issue has become a higher-profile plank of both
political parties — and could move to the center of the 2020 debate.
Farmers like Petersen are on the receiving end of
all this concentration. Just in the five years from 2007 to 2012, the number of
U.S. hog farms declined by 25%, the Agriculture Department
Joe Peiffer, a bankruptcy
the Iowa city of Hiawatha, told me that the current wave of consolidation shows
no sign of reversing.
culprit he sees is cheap food: In 1960,
Americans spent 17% of
their disposable income on food; the figure now is just 6.4%,
according to U.S. government figures. The tight margins ran out everyone
but the big dogs.
the reason, you can see the outcome outside
of Des Moines. "A lot of towns are ghost towns because the farmers
are gone. Schools are consolidating. My high school graduated 86 kids in
1974. It was 50 last year."
The heyday, in Petersen's
the 1970s, when "rural America was ungodly vibrant." Sixty cents per
pound of hog gave farmers a healthy profit, he said.
nearby city of Swaledale had just 220 people, yet when
you added in everyone in the surrounding, smaller towns, there was sufficient
business for a bank, grocery and hardware stores, a gas station, and two
bars with restaurants.
Swaledale is about 150, and the businesses have shuttered: "It's
all gone. That's what they've done to rural America."
When Petersen says
"they," he means Big Ag, which in his view is plain greedy. It is
trying "to run us out," he says, banging the table with his fist.
a statement, Bayer, which owns Monsanto, said: “Agriculture
is a complex and highly competitive industry, and there are hundreds of
companies driving innovation and competing for farmers’ business. After a
robust global regulatory review process, we brought together two talented
teams and a robust portfolio to offer more choices for farmers. Working
with our customers and partners around the world, we are focused on
developing smarter ways to grow healthy crops that are more
environmentally and economically sustainable.”
did not respond to an email.
In 2001, Petersen went
that, he changed his business model and began to raise a premium hog known as a
Berkshire, a breed whose meat he compares with Kobe beef. They fetch twice the
price of the standard hog.
whole sequence is outside the packers
system. He said he earns more from the 500 Berkshires he raises every year
than from the 2,500 ordinary hogs he used to produce.
capitalism at its best. You get a price, not a
fee," Petersen said.
Petersen's daughter Becky
and son Matt live
nearby. How have they managed to stay? Becky's husband Curtis and Matt both
work as conductors for Union Pacific Railroad, he says.
doesn't want to say what they earn but
says it's "ungodly wages." Both have acreage and raise cattle
"In this wicked
world," he says, "they're adjusted and are doing well."
We have never
seen anything like this before. According to satellite data that was just
released by Reuters, “at least 1 million acres of U.S. farmland” were covered
by water for at least seven days this month. That is an agricultural
disaster without equal in modern American history, and yet the mainstream media
is treating this like it is some sort of second class story. It
isn’t. This is the biggest news story of 2019 so far, and people want to
know what is going on. A few days ago, I posted a story entitled ‘“As Many As A Million Calves Lost In Nebraska” – Beef Prices In
The U.S. To Escalate Dramatically In The Coming Months’, and it has
already been shared on social media more than 145,000 times. Farming
communities all over the central part of the nation now look like war zones as
a result of all this flooding, but the media elites on the east and west coasts
don’t want to write about it. And with more flooding on the way for
the next two months, this crisis is only going to get worse.
This is the time of year when farmers are gearing up to plant
wheat, corn and soybeans, and now a substantial portion of our farmland will
not be able to be used at all this year. According to Reuters, at least a
million acres of farmland were covered by floodwaters for at least seven days
this month, and that “will likely reduce corn, wheat and soy production this
least 1 million acres (405,000 hectares) of U.S. farmland were flooded after
the “bomb cyclone” storm left wide swaths of nine major grain producing states
under water this month, satellite data analyzed by Gro Intelligence for Reuters
from the Dakotas to Missouri and beyond have been under water for a week or
more, possibly impeding planting and damaging soil. The floods, which came just
weeks before planting season starts in the Midwest, will likely reduce corn,
wheat and soy production this year.
And with “as many as a million calves” lost to the flooding, a lot
less food than anticipated is going to be produced in the United States for the
Between March 8th and March 21st, almost 1.1 million acres of
cropland and over 84,000 acres of pastureland were covered by water for at
least a week. With more rain on the way, it is essentially going to be
impossible for most of those acres to be usable this year.
In Iowa, 474,271 acres were covered by floodwaters for at least
seven days in March, and Iowa farmers are facing some very tough
deadlines. Corn must be planted by May 31st and soybeans must be planted
by June 15th in order to qualify for flood insurance. For most Iowa farms
that were covered by floodwaters, that is going to be impossible.
Overall, the recent flooding caused “at
least $3 billion” in economic damage according to authorities,
but many believe that the final number will be far higher.
Thousands upon thousands of farms have been completely destroyed,
and thousands upon thousands of farmers will not plant any crops at all this
In addition to the vast agricultural devastation that we have
witnessed, thousands upon thousands of homes have been destroyed as well, and
now the National Ground Water Association is warning that “the safety of more than a million private water wells” could
flooding in the Midwest is now threatening the safety of more than a million
private water wells. The National Ground Water
Association estimates that people living in more than 300 counties across 10 states have
their groundwater threatened from bacterial and industrial contamination
carried by flood waters.
If you live in the middle of the country and there is a chance
that your well may have been compromised, please don’t take any unnecessary
chances. Contaminated water can be really, really bad news.
floods could yet impact an even bigger area of cropland. The
U.S. government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has warned of
what could be an “unprecedented
flood season” as it forecasts heavy spring rains.
Rivers may swell further as a deep snow pack in northern growing areas melts.
Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of overlap with areas
that have already been devastated by flooding.
On Friday and Saturday, there will be “more heavy rains” in the
Midwest, and Nebraska is in “the
direct path” of the center of the storm…
the Central Plains to the Midwest, it has been a disastrous spring for river
weather system slated to bring more heavy rains Friday into Saturday could
aggravate the situation along and near the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.
one-two punch that combines additional rainwater with fresh runoff from
worst off is Nebraska, in the direct path of Friday’s quick burst of moisture.
Barely a week has passed since Gov. Pete Ricketts estimated the cost of ongoing
flooding in that state at more than $1 billion.
This is it. America is being hammered by one storm after
another, and I very much encourage you to get prepared for
a very rough ride ahead.
There is going to be a lot more flooding. Prices for beef,
dairy, wheat, corn and soy products are going to rise significantly, and just
when you think they are way too high they are going to keep on rising.
This is already the worst agricultural disaster in modern American
history, and federal authorities are telling us that we should expect things to
continue to get worse for at least two more months.
Perhaps the mainstream media will eventually decide to take this
story seriously, but until they do those of us in the alternative media will do
our best to keep you updated.
Having seen how his forefathers
successfully redefined America out of existence to suit themselves with their
ahistorical Melting Pot mythology, Ben Shapiro is now attempting to redefine
Western Civilization in order to better suit his Neo-Palestinian perspective.
That's what it means for him to be on "the right side of history".
From a comment on the Darkstream:
I mentioned his Tweet about his recent book and listed him the three cores
ofWestern Civilization. It was a real mention, not a comment over a screenshot
European etnichities ✔️
Christianity✔️( the most important)
Who is rewriting it Ben?
Ben Shapiro @benshapiro
"So, if you'd like to both join the fight against the alt-right and
their racist rewriting of "Western civilization," and fight the
horrific media bias of people who lump together conservatism and alt-right
racism, buy a copy of my book"
The amount of projection in that tweet is
simply astonishing. It is Ben Shapiro who is the racist advocate of global
imperialism. As you should be able to see by now, Shapiro, Peterson, Prager,
and others of their Fake Right camouflage are every bit as evil and anti-Western
as the SJWs, but
they are considerably more dangerous due to their proven ability to disguise their
intentions and to fool so many self-styled conservatives into blithely
supporting the ongoing destruction of America and the West.
Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's
Are all civilizations and
cultures equal, or are some more equal than others?
Democratic Party quarrels over reparations for slavery, a new and related issue
has arisen, raised by the president of Mexico.
Manuel Lopez Obrador has written Pope Francis I and King Felipe VI to demand
their apologies for the Spanish conquest of Mexico that began 500 years ago
with the “invasion” of Hernando Cortez.
on the Gulf Coast in 1519, Cortes marched in two years to what is today’s
Mexico City to impose Spanish rule, the Spanish language and culture, and the
Catholic faith upon the indigenous peoples.
culture, one civilization was imposed upon another,” wrote President Lopez
Obrador: “There were massacres and oppression. The so-called conquest was waged
with the sword and the cross. They built their churches on top of the temples.”
demanded that the king and the pope ask for “forgiveness for the abuses
inflicted on the indigenous peoples of Mexico.”
Now no one
denies that great sins and crimes were committed in that conquest. But are not
the Mexican people, 130 million of them, far better off because the Spanish
came and overthrew the Aztec Empire?
300 years of Spanish rule and replacement of Mexico’s pagan cults with the
Catholic faith lead to enormous advances for its civilization and human rights?
there never a justification for one nation to invade another, conquer its
people, impose its rule, and uproot and replace its culture and civilization?
Is “cultural genocide” always a crime against humanity, even if the uprooted
culture countenanced human sacrifice?
Aztecs have a right to be left alone by the European world?
whence came that right?
leads to another question: Are all civilizations and cultures equal, or are
some more equal than others? Are some superior?
recent decades, most Americans were taught to believe the West stood above all
other civilizations, and America was its supreme manifestation. And much of the
world seemed to agree.
As for the
assertion that all civilizations and cultures are equal, that is an ideological
statement. But where is the historic, scientific or empirical evidence to
support that proposition? How many people really believe that?
Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said it was “weird to receive now this request
for an apology for events that occurred 500 years ago.”
wondered if Spain should seek an apology from France for the invasion of the
Iberian Peninsula and crimes committed by the armies of Napoleon, or if France
could demand an apology from Italy for the invasion of Gaul by Julius Caesar?
to get an apology from the king, Lopez Obrador may do better with Pope Francis
who is into begging for forgiveness for crimes committed in the
Spanish-Portuguese conquest and rule of South America.
in 2015, the pope declared:
this to you with regret. Many grave sins were committed against the native
people of America in the name of God. … I humbly ask forgiveness, not only for
the offense of the church herself, but also for crimes committed against the
native people during the so-called conquest of America.”
As The New
York Times related in its story on the “chilly response” in Madrid to Mexico’s
demand, other Western leaders — not only Barack Obama — are very much into this
Trudeau has apologized for Canada’s mistreatment of its indigenous peoples.
France’s Emmanuel Macron has apologized for the torture of rebels in Algeria’s
war for independence.
Spanish right, however, is not with the program.
Rivera, leader of the Ciudadanos, called Lopez Obrador’s demand “an intolerable
offense to the Spanish people.”
Hernando of the Popular Party dismissed it with contempt: “We Spaniards went
there (to Mexico) and ended the power of tribes that assassinated their
neighbors with cruelty and fury.”
Behind this demand for an apology from Spain and the
Church is a view of history familiar to Americans, and rooted in clashing
concepts about who we are, and were.
Have the Western peoples who conquered and changed
much of the world been, on balance, a blessing to mankind or a curse? Is the
history of the West, though replete with the failings of all civilizations, not
unique in the greatness of what it produced?
Or are the West’s crimes of imperialism, colonialism,
genocide, racism, slavery and maltreatment of minorities of color so sweeping,
hateful and shameful they cancel out the good done?
Is the white race, as Susan Sontag wrote, “the cancer
of human history”?
As we see the monuments and memorials to the great
men of our past desecrated and dragged down, the verdict among a slice of our
intellectual and cultural elites is already in. Thumbs down. They agree with
the moral shakedown artist of Mexico City.
Query: Can peoples who are ashamed of their
nation’s past do great things in its future? Or is a deep-seated national
guilt, such as that which afflicts many Germans today, a permanent
incapacitating feature of a nation’s existence?
America's Senior Generals Find No Exits From
“Veni, Vidi, Vici,” boasted Julius Caesar, one
of history’s great military captains. “I came, I saw, I conquered.”
Then-Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton echoed that famed saying when summing up the Obama administration’s
military intervention in Libya in 2011 — with a small alteration. “We came, we
saw, he died,” she said with a laugh about
the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, that country’s autocratic leader. Note what she
left out, though: the “vici” or victory part. And how right she was to do so, since
Washington’s invasions, occupations, and interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya, and elsewhere in this century have never produced anything faintly like
a single decisive and lasting victory.
“Failure is not an option” was
the stirring 1995 movie catchphrase for the dramatic 1970 rescue of the Apollo
13 moon mission and crew, but were such a movie to be made about America’s wars
and their less-than-vici-esque results today, the phrase would have to be corrected in
Clintonian fashion to read “We came, we saw, we failed.”
Wars are risky, destructive,
unpredictable endeavors, so it would hardly be surprising if America’s military
and civilian leaders failed occasionally in their endless martial endeavors,
despite the overwhelming superiority in firepower of “the world’s greatest military.”
Here’s the question, though: Why have all the American wars of this century
gone down in flames and what in the world have those leaders learned from such
The evidence before our eyes
suggests that, when it comes to our senior military leaders at least, the
answer would be: nothing at all.
Let’s begin with General David
Petraeus, he of “the surge”
fame in the Iraq War. Of course, he would briefly fall from grace in 2012,
while director of the CIA, thanks to an affair with his biographer with whom he
inappropriately shared highly classified information. When riding high in
Iraq in 2007, however, “King David” (as he was then dubbed) was widely
considered an example of America’s best and brightest. He was a soldier-scholar
with a doctorate from Princeton, an “insurgent”
general with the perfect way — a revival of Vietnam-era counterinsurgency
techniques — to stabilize invaded and occupied Iraq. He was the man to snatch
victory from the jaws of looming defeat. (Talk about a fable not worthy of
Though retired from the
military since 2011, Petraeus somehow remains a bellwether for conventional
thinking about America’s wars at the Pentagon, as well as inside the Washington
Beltway. And despite the quagmire in Afghanistan (that he had a significant
hand in deepening), despite the widespread destruction in Iraq (for which he
would hold some responsibility), despite the failed-state chaos in Libya, he
continues to relentlessly plug the idea of pursuing a “sustainable” forever war
against global terrorism; in other words, yet more of the same.
“I would contend that the fight
against Islamist extremists is not one that we’re going to see the end of in
our lifetimes probably. I think this is a generational struggle, which requires
you to have a sustained commitment. But of course you can only sustain it if
it’s sustainable in terms of the expenditure of blood and treasure.”
His comment brings to mind a
World War II quip about General George S. Patton,
also known as “old blood and guts.” Some of his troops responded to that
nickname this way: yes, his guts, but our blood. When men like Petraeus measure
the supposed sustainability of their wars in terms of blood and treasure, the
first question should be: Whose blood, whose treasure?
When it comes to Washington’s
Afghan War, now in its 18th year and looking ever more like a demoralizing
defeat, Petraeus admits that U.S. forces “never had an exit strategy.” What
they did have, he claims, “was a strategy to allow us to continue to achieve
our objectives… with the reduced expenditure in blood and treasure.”
Think of this formulation as an
upside-down version of the notorious “body count” of the Vietnam War. Instead
of attempting to maximize enemy dead, as General William Westmoreland sought to
do from 1965 to 1968, Petraeus is suggesting that the U.S. seek to keep the
American body count to a minimum (translating into minimal attention back
home), while minimizing the “treasure” spent. By keeping American bucks and
body bags down (Afghans be damned), the war, he
insists, can be sustained not just for a few more years but generationally. (He
cites 70-year troop commitments to NATO and South Korea as reasonable models.)
Talk about lacking an exit
strategy! And he also speaks of a persistent “industrial-strength” Afghan
insurgency without noting that U.S. military actions, including drone strikes
and an increasing reliance on
air power, result in ever more dead civilians,
which only feed that same insurgency. For him, Afghanistan is little more than
a “platform” for regional counterterror operations and so anything must be done
to prevent the greatest horror of all: withdrawing American troops too quickly.
In fact, he suggests that
American-trained and supplied Iraqi forces collapsed in
2014, when attacked by relatively small groups of ISIS militants, exactly
because U.S. troops had been withdrawn too quickly. The same, he has no doubt,
will happen if President Trump repeats this “mistake” in Afghanistan. (Poor
showings by U.S.-trained forces are never, of course, evidence of a bankrupt
approach in Washington, but of the need to “stay the course.”)
critique is, in fact, a subtle version of the stab-in-the-back myth. Its
underlying premise: that the U.S. military is always on the generational cusp
of success, whether in Vietnam in 1971, Iraq in 2011, or Afghanistan in 2019,
if only the rug weren’t pulled out from under the U.S. military by irresolute
Of course, this is all
nonsense. Commanded by none other than General David Petraeus, the Afghan surge of
2009-2010 proved a dismal failure as, in the end, had his Iraq surge of 2007.
U.S. efforts to train reliable indigenous forces (no matter where in the
embattled Greater Middle East and Africa) have also consistently failed. Yet
Petraeus’s answer is always more of the same: more U.S. troops and advisers,
training, bombing, and killing, all to be repeated at “sustainable” levels for
generations to come.
The alternative, he suggests,
is too awful to contemplate:
“You have to do something about
[Islamic extremism] because otherwise they’re going to spew violence,
extremism, instability, and a tsunami of refugees not just into neighboring
countries but… into our western European allies, undermining their domestic
No mention here of how the U.S.
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq spread destruction and, in the end, a
“tsunami of refugees” throughout the region. No mention of how U.S.
interventions and bombing in Libya, Syria, Somalia, and
elsewhere help “spew” violence and generate a series of failed states.
And amazingly enough, despite
his lack of “vici” moments, the American media
still sees King
David as the go-to guy for advice on how to fight and win the wars he’s had
such a hand in losing. And just in case you want to start worrying a little,
he’s now offering such advice on even more dangerous matters. He’s started to
comment on the new “cold war” that now has Washington abuzz, a coming era — as
he puts it —
of “renewed great power rivalries” with China and Russia, an era, in fact, of
“multi-domain warfare” that could prove far more challenging than “the
asymmetric abilities of the terrorists and extremists and insurgents that we’ve
countered in Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan and a variety of other places,
particularly since 9/11.”
For Petraeus, even if Islamic
terrorism disappeared tomorrow and not generations from now, the U.S. military
would still be engaged with the supercharged threat of China and Russia. I can
already hear Pentagon cash registers going ka-ching!
And here, in the end, is what’s
most striking about Petraeus’s war lessons: no concept of peace even exists in
his version of the future. Instead, whether via Islamic terrorism or rival
great powers, America faces intractable threats into a distant future. Give him
credit for one thing: if adopted, his vision could keep the national security
state funded in the staggering fashion it’s come to expect for generations, or
at least until the money runs out and the U.S. empire collapses.
Two Senior Generals Draw
Lessons from the Iraq War
David Petraeus remains
America’s best-known general of this century. His thinking, though, is anything
but unique. Take two other senior U.S. Army generals, Mark Milley and Ray
Odierno, both of whom recently contributed forewords to the Army’s official history
of the Iraq War that tell you what you need to know about Pentagon thinking
January, the Army’s history of Operation Iraqi Freedom is detailed and
controversial. Completed in June 2016, its publication was pushed back due to
internal disagreements. As the Wall Street Journal put it in
October 2018: “Senior [Army] brass fretted over the impact the study’s
criticisms might have on prominent officers’ reputations and on congressional
support for the service.” With those worries apparently resolved, the study is
now available at the Army War College website.
The Iraq War witnessed the
overthrow of autocrat (and former U.S. ally) Saddam Hussein, a speedy
declaration of “mission accomplished”
by President George W. Bush, and that country’s subsequent descent into
occupation, insurgency, civil war, and chaos. What should the Army have learned
from all this? General Milley, now Army chief of staff and President
Trump’s nominee to serve as the
next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is explicit on its lessons:
“OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom]
is a sober reminder that technological advantages and standoff weapons alone
cannot render a decision; that the promise of short wars is often elusive; that
the ends, ways, and means must be in balance; that our Army must understand the
type of war we are engaged with in order to adapt as necessary; that decisions
in war occur on the ground in the mud and dirt; and that timeless factors such
as human agency, chance, and an enemy’s conviction, all shape a war’s outcome.”
These aren’t, in fact, lessons.
They’re military banalities. The side with the best weapons doesn’t always win.
Short wars can turn into long ones. The enemy has a say in how the war is
fought. What they lack is any sense of Army responsibility for mismanaging the
Iraq War so spectacularly. In other words, mission accomplished for General
General Odierno, who
commissioned the study and served in Iraq for 55 months, spills yet more ink in
arguing, like Milley, that the Army has learned from its mistakes and adapted,
becoming even more agile and lethal. Here’s my summary of his “lessons”:
* Superior technology doesn’t
guarantee victory. Skill and warcraft remain vital.
* To win a war of occupation,
soldiers need to know the environment, including “the local political and
social consequences of our actions… When conditions on the ground change, we
must be willing to reexamine the assumptions that underpin our strategy and
plans and change course if necessary, no matter how painful it may be,” while
developing better “strategic leaders.”
* The Army needs to be enlarged
further because “landpower” is so vital and America’s troops were “overtaxed by
the commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the decision to limit our troop
levels in both theaters had severe operational consequences.”
* The Iraq War showcased an
Army with an “astonishing” capacity “to learn and adapt in the midst of a war
that the United States was well on its way to losing.”
The gist of Odierno’s
“lessons”: the Army learned, adapted, and overcame. Therefore, it deserves
America’s thanks and yet more of everything, including the money and resources
to pursue future wars even more successfully. There would, however, be another
way to read those lessons of his: that the Army overvalued technology, that
combat skills were lacking, that efforts to work with allies and Iraqi forces
regularly failed, that Army leadership lacked the skills needed to win, and
that it was folly to get into a global war on terror in the first place.
On those failings, neither
Milley nor Odierno has anything of value to say, since their focus is purely on
how to make the Army prevail in future versions of just such wars. Their limited critique,
in short, does little to prevent future disasters. Much like Petraeus’s
reflections, they cannot envision an end point to the process — no victory to
be celebrated, no return to America being “a normal country in
a normal time.” There is only war and more war in their (and so our) future.
Talk of such future wars — of,
that is, more of the same — reminded me of the sixth Star Trek movie, The Undiscovered Country.
In that space opera, which appeared in 1991 just as the Soviet Union was
imploding, peace finally breaks out between the quasi-democratic Federation
(think: the USA) and the warmongering Klingon Empire (think: the USSR). Even
the Federation’s implacable warrior-captain, James T. Kirk, grudgingly learns
to bury the phaser with the Klingon “bastards” who murdered his son.
Back then, I was a young
captain in the U.S. Air Force and, with the apparent end of the Cold War, my
colleagues and I dared talk about, if not eternal peace, at least “peace” as
our own — and not just Star Trek’s — undiscovered country. Like many at the time, even we in the
military were looking forward to what was then called a “peace dividend.”
But that unknown land, which
Americans then glimpsed ever so briefly, remains unexplored to this day. The
reason why is simple enough. As Andrew Bacevich put it in his book Breach of Trust,
“For the Pentagon [in 1991], peace posed a concrete and imminent threat” —
which meant that new threats, “rogue states” of every sort, had to be found.
And found they were.
It comes as no surprise, then,
that America’s generals have learned so little of real value from their
twenty-first-century losses. They continue to see a state of “infinite war”
as necessary and are blind to the ways in which endless war and the
ever-developing war state in Washington are the enemies of democracy.
The question isn’t why they
think the way they do. The question is why so many Americans share their
vision. The future is now. Isn’t it time that the U.S. sought to invade and
occupy a different “land” entirely: an undiscovered country — a future —
defined by peace?
from TomDispatch by
permission of author or representative)