We need to be reducing our 'footprint' around the globe, not increasing it. This is going to eventually bankrupt us.

Thank you Gus, for that intelligent and detailed explanation of what resources we need, what our national priority is, and what our military should do.

"All we need a state of the art missile defense system, control our boarders and brink home all troops from abroad."

I hate to mention that you don't just walk out and buy a state of the art missle defense system off the shelf at local stores. I'm pretty much sure that boarders are controlled; our borders might not immune to illegal crossing, but most boarders are good tenents. And as for the idea that we should brink home all our troops from abroad; well, I'm not sure how you can brink them home from anywhere, let alone abroad. We can BRING them home, but I'd leave it at that; we don't need to say bring them home from abroad because those that aren't abroad are already home; where else could they be brought home from, other than abroad.

All we need a state of the art missile defense system, control our boarders and brink home all troops from abroad.

Not as negative as Mr Arkin ...

as long as we don't invade Egypt, set up a new version of Green Zone, set up the command there

the cross-command of geographic and functional areas seems sure to create high process costs, as matrix-style orgs tend to do .... not good for national security

Happy New Year and Merry Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice! I'll drink to them both!!!!!

Jaded I toast you! -- To my chagrin, I think your comments have the stinging ring of truth---so a toast to you!

What once was called the revolving door between the retired military flag ranks,[and some ranks below and former civil servents and pentagon political appointees], and the defense/security contractors is now just a blantant open barndoor to greener war-profiteering pastures. So lift a glass...please.

We can thank former DOD Secretaries such as Defense Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and their Congressional supporters and 'the Defense contractors of scale' for 'opening the once locked stores'and for developing policies and legislation to weaken the policy walls between the defense contractor community and the military services.
Lift that glass, to an open bar!

And a toast to both political parties, since they can be thanked for shrinking the standing Forces and crafting policies which made the military into a smaller, nimbler? 'just in time' strike force, which could only be 'surged' if Guard, Reserve and Contractors were included in a the total surge force! Here, here..Drink to your Party of Choice and be full of Cheer!

How many years was the American voter told that Contractor/Military operations integration was all going to be so much more cost effective and efficient if those business experts, in the form of defense contractors were allowed to take over the military and civil service jobs. Bottoms up to that!

The market forces would ensure efficiency and the rules of governance of the new relationships could be written later...Hoist that glass high!

Maybe those civilian Pentagon and Congressional National Defense Game Developers would have been marginally right, if every war was as brief, clean and decisive as an engagement as say the 'Gulf War Version 1.0'--- and 'Gulf War 1.5 [the no-fly zone, containment game]. Cheers; a drink to the Great Games!

But Alas, 'Gulf War Version 2.0' and 'Afghanistan 2.0 the American-UN version' and the soon to be released follow-on games to 'Somolia 1.0' and 'Al Queda in Africa, Asia and America 2.0' are longer versions requiring full up Playstations plug and plays capabilities. That means they cost a lot more than expected. Tsk, Tsk... But wait--- the bar is still open, so drink up!

And now that the force size is so puny and spent, we can't do without the contractors...and best of all, we don't really understand how to check ballooning contactor costs or do oversight in this new Total Force Order anyway. Opps... A roast and a toast is in order than drink up!

But who cares anyway---Saddam Hussein went to the gallows this weekend and he's DEAD, DEAD, DEAD and the New Year Stork is bringing a divided government again in the form of a new Congress! I'll drink two fisted to that good news!

And speaking of the weekend hangin'---some may find these links really entertaining....and Bing Crosby is always a treat to hear--keep playing Bing as background as you read that sour, spoil sport Fisk...and as we drink another round to the holidays and the great weekend news and prepare to nurse our Hang Overs!

For Bing:
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
For Fisk:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16014.htm

The Africa Command based somewhere outside the United States is a bad idea. What exactly will the mission of the command.
I assume the mission will be oversee and react to events on the African continent adversely affecting American foreign policy. What exactly is American foreign policy towards Africa in general?

I worked Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti in 1995. US forces, in my case, US Army were deployed to bring democracy to Haiti after General Cedras failed to comply with the Governor's Island agreement to bring back Aristid. Now think for a minute how close Haiti is to the United States-we flew there in a C-130 from Ft. Bragg. The Dominican Republic is on the other end of the island and a major tourist resort worldwide.
Look at Haiti today-a mess. Drugs, people hungry, killings and hardly a shining example of peace and tranquility in our own hemisphere. OK, now think of Africa thousands of miles away like Haiti. A difficult and challenging mission if democracy, peace and tranquility are the metric of success.
I worked the cease fire intrim peace in Nuba Mountains, Sudan in 2002, and although travel outside my area of operations was limited, I came to know many of the fighters, many from the south of Sudan and to include a few others who explained to me the impact of collective tribalism is so strong-it is not the country, but the tribe as the common denominator. In one case, the tribes of Nuba came together to fight the GOS-Government of Sudan troops, only to fight eachother months after the battle of Kauda, Nuba Mts, Sudan, May-2001-at issue were a few cows. Getting involved in boots on the ground in Africa is likely to lead to the situation in Haiti-as mentioned above.
1995-Haiti,1996-Bosnia,1999-Kosovo,2002-Sudan,2003-Afghanistan,2005-Iraq.

The Africa Command based somewhere outside the United States is a bad idea. What exactly will the mission of the command.
I assume the mission will be oversee and react to events on the African continent adversely affecting American foreign policy. What exactly is American foreign policy towards Africa in general?

I worked Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti in 1995. US forces, in my case, US Army were deployed to bring democracy to Haiti after General Cedras failed to comply with the Governor's Island agreement to bring back Aristid. Now think for a minute how close Haiti is to the United States-we flew there in a C-130 from Ft. Bragg. The Dominican Republic is on the other end of the island and a major tourist resort worldwide.
Look at Haiti today-a mess. Drugs, people hungry, killings and hardly a shining example of peace and tranquility in our own hemisphere. OK, now think of Africa thousands of miles away like Haiti. A difficult and challenging mission if democracy, peace and tranquility are the metric of success.
I worked the cease fire intrim peace in Nuba Mountains, Sudan in 2002, and although travel outside my area of operations was limited, I came to know many of the fighters, many from the south of Sudan and to include a few others who explained to me the impact of collective tribalism is so strong-it is not the country, but the tribe as the common denominator. In one case, the tribes of Nuba came together to fight the GOS-Government of Sudan troops, only to fight eachother months after the battle of Kauda, Nuba Mts, Sudan, May-2001-at issue were a few cows. Getting involved in boots on the ground in Africa is likely to lead to the situation in Haiti-as mentioned above.
1995-Haiti,1996-Bosnia,1999-Kosovo,2002-Sudan,2003-Afghanistan,2005-Iraq.

Note to JTF J2: as a J2 staff officer myself, I can say with some degees of authority that Arkin is pretty near the truth when he talks about the military-contractor machine continually reinventing the wheel; new tree, same monkeys sure hits the nail on the head. And who are those same monkeys; more top brass, SESs, GS15s and Contractors in fancy new buildings in the fancy German town they fancy to homestead in. What a self-sustaining racket we're part of; declare new threats, get more money, create new commands (in the way cool locations you desire to live & party) build more buildings, hire more friends/family/ cronies, go TDY to cool places. Actually I blame civilians (mostly contractors) for this racket more than military - but it's top brass that goes along because they're anticipating a cush 2nd career as a 15, or SES, or contractor. Oh what a sweet deal to get out of DC and take that job to Germany as the DIA rep to Kakalaca Command. Darn right I'm sarcastic - cause I've lived it, in both DC and now J2 overseas. This is a growth business we're in and it's called fewer troops doing more work in order to pay for more cush GS, SES and contracting positions. It really is the military-industrial complex, but it's less mil these days and more exhorbitantly paid contracting.

I get that he doesn't like the idea of an Africa Command. But the tone and inuendo in the article shows a deeper dislike (generally) for the military. That would be ok too if the Post weren't passing this guy off as someone who knows his topic area. Reading not-so between the lines, he seems to advocate getting rid of all of the COCOMs and Functioal Commands so those pesty four-star "monkeys" don't build headquarters facilities and staffs that plan future wars for the pure fun of it. Oh, brother, is this guy a clueless idiot! NOTE TO WASH POST EDITORIAL STAFF: Dump this guy and give us someone who has at least some credibility and objectivity! It is ok to disagree and offer different solutions.... and Africa Command clearly deserves some thought (both plus and minus). But negativity just because you don't care for things military doesn't do anyone any good.

Take a look at the pictures of terrorists involved in the Kenya-Tanzania bombings in 1998. You will see quite a few African faces.

lurker37

We should also take a look at the pictures of the terrorist faces of those who have illegally invaded and occupied the once sovereign nation of Iraq, et al, not to mention the faces of those who seek to dominate the whole planet; they are not African faces.

On the other hand, they are the faces of mostly white Americans, but the fact is that they are terrorist faces as well!

Setting up an Africa command that concentrates on preparing armed forces of legitimate African nations to conduct themselves in the honorable soldier fashion should be commended. Yet, every time this Administration, or really even preceding Administrations, attempts to do something for Africa, it is ridiculed. Africa is at the forefront of the Islamacists challenge. Think: Darfur, Somalia, Nigeria, Kenya. Countries up and down Africa, weakened by collapsed rule of law, rampant HIV-AIDS rates, corruption, and the road paved with good intentions from the UN, WHO, MSF, and others are slowly, and almost hiddenly being overrun by the Islmamacists movement. Take a look at the pictures of terrorists involved in the Kenya-Tanzania bombings in 1998. You will see quite a few African faces. Take a look at Al-Qaeda. If there was ever a global organization, this one is it. Forget about the effects of a McDonalds cheeseburger and think about the radicalizaion of Islam. Africa is the low intensity battleground. It is time for us to pay attention or suffer from lack of will and inaction.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS is a joke because it makes people afraid to actually hold the Pentagon accountable for its imperial sprawl, antagonizing conflicts around the world in order to accomplish some goal, usually linked to greater economic gain by America. Come on people.

Posted by: Usama

Right on Usama, President's have gotten America into conflicts for years, and afterwards the 'support the troops strategem' in order to inveigle the American public to in fact support the furtive and nefarious schemes of the executive office.

Frankly, it has always been a ruse. Why, based on some of the polling data that came out of Iraq during the last general election, one can see see that some of the troops were just as confused and bloodthirsty as Mr. Bush was; some of the troops want to indiscrimiantely kill people who have not done anything to Aneruca or to them.

Besides many of the troops historically vote for warhawks Presidents, they believe in what they are doing and then they join the military to go off and fight and kill innocent people.

Some are patriots but some of them actually do possess a military, paramilitary/I want to kill someone mindset. Many of them when they leave the military pursue civilian paramilitary occupations and occuptations.

Ergo, I do not support many of them, in particular those who got what they wanted in the first place, WAR!

Song: War, what is it good for...? Ans. To appease warhawks, acquire land and property that does not belong to you, gain political control and to make some people wealthier!

Defensive war, for America is a misnomer. America has not been in a defensive war since WWII. Then America fought against an imperialist expansionist nation that enaged in the same behaviors that America is engaging in today!

If America wants to fight for justice and against imperialism and expansionism, America should be fighting against itself!

Alex,

Thank youm and speaking of space cadets, the point is that there are individuals who are currently working on technologies who are oblivious to the fact that they are working on military space technology.

Let's hope that the Congress and it's various intelligence committees will get involved and insist on having oversight, or soon the executive office will be annihilating people and heads of state from inner and outer space.

Of course, they will deny any such actions and explain the disappearance of certain individuals (like Alex) as acts of God, and I might concur!

rev writes:"Guess what folks? Individuals who were helped to build parts for the F117, B1 and B3, some had no idea on what they were working on. The same has been true for some time."

well, yes thats how they produce top secret items. You dont tell the guy who's drilling holes "hey , this is a top secret xxxx thing". Your not looking to spread that all over , otherwise it wouldn't be a secret.

It is incumbent on Congress...

Some Americans believe that under certain circumstances it is understandable that the President cannot always be forthright with the American public, particularly with sensitive information that pertains to the nation's national security. But how about to Congress, particularly to those Congressional Committees that are already in place and that have oversight, why hasn't the President been forthright? More and more the truth has begun to trickle out, with regard to the real reasons for the American mission to Iraq.

I believe that it is time for the new Congress to step up, and to correct a serious glitch that will not only correct the problem that we are currently experiencing with President Bush and Iraq, but their actions can also prevent future Presidents from even considering engaging in similar behaviors as the 'misleading' past President Mr. Bush has done.

When Congress approved funding four years ago (and in-between) for the Iraq mission, Congress did so as a result of being misled by the President. Today, both Congress and the American public know that the stated reasons that were given were flatly untrue.

And if you argue that we were not misled, and we were, the fact is there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that is another reason why Congress should have stopped funding the invasion and occupation a long time ago.

To continue to fund a fraudulent and unconscionable war would be uncivilized. If Congress elects to fund the new mission in Iraq, they should do so only after receiving full disclosure from the President's office as to what the mission really is, then funding should only continue only after Congress has received a full explanation of how the money is to be used; and Congress must approve of the said reasons for the new mission and declare war on somebody!

Otherwise, Congress should step up and shut down the fraudulent mission to Iraq that is currently responsible for the loss of thousands of lives and a wrecked nation!

The additional money that would be spent to do any more damage in Iraq or to destroy any more innocent Iraqi lives and the Iraqi (created by Great Britain homeland), should instead be approved by Congress in order to begin paying reparations to the nation of Iraq.

And as for Bush who is guilty of all of that he has accused Saddm of in the M-E, as well as fraud and Contempt-of-Congress in America, he should share the same fate as Saddam, that is if Saddam were to be hanged!

Space Command...

Check out today's Washington Post and you will see that Rev is right.

The Washington Post article only sheds partial light on the plans and research that is going on behind the scenes. I betcha Mr. Arkin can tell us all about it.

Guess what folks? Individuals who were helped to build parts for the F117, B1 and B3, some had no idea on what they were working on. The same has been true for some time. America is already designing and experimentating with space weapons grade technology.

And, its not be done for defensive reasons, althought that it what they will say.

More plausible deniability?

having military controll of space is nothing new. It has been going on since the beginning of the cold war. Now think of this. If most the commercial sattelites orbiting the earth were destroyed or disabled, you would probably not be able to watch tv, use the internett, like you do, or even bank with the convienience you know have. Like it or not if we lose controll over assets in space, we all suffer. so folks we need to think, rather than just react on our emotions, stemming from political beliefs.

What people need to realize is the military initiates imperial sprawl. One thing leads to another and then escalation and appropriation. Politicans are increasingly subject to the pressure of the Pentagon. The Pentagon works politics in America, playing one political faction off another in order to gain its edge or accomplish its interests.
Read the book HOUSE OF WAR by James Carroll. He traces this trend back to the beginning of the modern Pentagon.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS is a joke because it makes people afraid to actually hold the Pentagon accountable for its imperial sprawl, antagonizing conflicts around the world in order to accomplish some goal, usually linked to greater economic gain by America.

Come on people.

An African Command? It has been anticipated given the increase in American military/spec ops there.
America has a single major military base in Djibouti called Camp LeMonier. Out this the 10th Spec Forces have been coordinating Pan Sahel Initiative (PSI), now the Trans Sahara Counter Terrorism Inititiative (TSCI)proposed to have over 100 million annually in spending.
What people should note is the TSCI links American Spec Forces with the Sahel nations, including Chad and Ethiopia but not Sudan. American forces have directly trained and "advise" the Chadian presidential guard, the same guard which has been seen fighting with Darfur rebels against the Sudanese govt in Darfur, so said former Chadian ambassador to America that gained exile in America.

Is America fomenting conflict in Darfur?

American forces have trained and equipped Ethiopian, Eritrean, Kenyan, Ugandan, Tanzanian forces under the East Africa Counter Terrorism Initiative (EACTI) under a budget of $100 mill in 2003.

Under African Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA) $ 100 million was allocated in 2006 for countries to prepare their militaries to be contingency forces for American interests, countries such as Ethiopia. ACOTA is under the Global Peace Operations Inititiave (GPOI).

Under the International Military Education and Training program, the Pentagon had $594,000 allocated for training Ethiopian officers.

Under the CJIF-HOA, American forces out of Le Monier have trained and supported the Somali warlords in Puntland and in Somalia proper. But all of that and the Islamic Courts Union of Somalia ousted the horrendous Somali warlords (some reports of CIA ferrying warlords out to sea after they were defeated). American training and backing has emboldened the Ethiopian military to push the Horn of Africa into a major war. This time, America is directly backing Ethiopia and the Somali transitional government in Baidoa which is the formal instrument of the Somali warlords.

And that's just the Horn of Africa and Darfur. Back in 1999 Wayne Madsen reported to Congress American military forces were training in Uganda the Ugandan military and Congolese rebels who in turn have engaged in terrible civil war in Congo, including reports of rebels cannabalizing native tribes.
America is also linked to the Rwandan National Front, the military which ended the Rwandan massacre. But the RNF is led by Paul Kagame who has been the leader of Rwanda ever since. Kagame was trained at American military bases back in the 1990s. Moreover, Kagame has worked with America to support the Congolese rebels against the Kinshasa govt.
A French court has recently indicted Kagame of assasinating the Hutu president by shooting down his plane- the act which sparked the Rwandan massacre.

I could go on.

An African Command? It has been anticipated given the increase in American military/spec ops there.
America has a single major military base in Djibouti called Camp LeMonier. Out this the 10th Spec Forces have been coordinating Pan Sahel Initiative (PSI), now the Trans Sahara Counter Terrorism Inititiative (TSCI)proposed to have over 100 million annually in spending.
What people should note is the TSCI links American Spec Forces with the Sahel nations, including Chad and Ethiopia but not Sudan. American forces have directly trained and "advise" the Chadian presidential guard, the same guard which has been seen fighting with Darfur rebels against the Sudanese govt in Darfur, so said former Chadian ambassador to America that gained exile in America.

Is America fomenting conflict in Darfur?

American forces have trained and equipped Ethiopian, Eritrean, Kenyan, Ugandan, Tanzanian forces under the East Africa Counter Terrorism Initiative (EACTI) under a budget of $100 mill in 2003.

Under African Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA) $ 100 million was allocated in 2006 for countries to prepare their militaries to be contingency forces for American interests, countries such as Ethiopia. ACOTA is under the Global Peace Operations Inititiave (GPOI).

Under the International Military Education and Training program, the Pentagon had $594,000 allocated for training Ethiopian officers.

Under the CJIF-HOA, American forces out of Le Monier have trained and supported the Somali warlords in Puntland and in Somalia proper. But all of that and the Islamic Courts Union of Somalia ousted the horrendous Somali warlords (some reports of CIA ferrying warlords out to sea after they were defeated). American training and backing has emboldened the Ethiopian military to push the Horn of Africa into a major war. This time, America is directly backing Ethiopia and the Somali transitional government in Baidoa which is the formal instrument of the Somali warlords.

And that's just the Horn of Africa and Darfur. Back in 1999 Wayne Madsen reported to Congress American military forces were training in Uganda the Ugandan military and Congolese rebels who in turn have engaged in terrible civil war in Congo, including reports of rebels cannabalizing native tribes.
America is also linked to the Rwandan National Front, the military which ended the Rwandan massacre. But the RNF is led by Paul Kagame who has been the leader of Rwanda ever since. Kagame was trained at American military bases back in the 1990s. Moreover, Kagame has worked with America to support the Congolese rebels against the Kinshasa govt.
A French court has recently indicted Kagame of assasinating the Hutu president by shooting down his plane- the act which sparked the Rwandan massacre.

I could go on.

Having served in the military for over 30 years--I am stung by Mr. Arkins comments, but must agree with his assessment--we will build a new bright beautiful shiny headquarters filled with self important people (like myself!) doing what they believe is right and in our national interest. I would hope that we would decide that the new Africa Command does not need to be Headquartered in Africa but like Central Command can operate out of a Headquarters on an existing military installation in the United States.

Yonkers, NY, 16 Dec 2006
It is quite likely that the U.S. military has not learned much from history. The Roman empire spread itself far and wide all over the globe and thus overextended and overstressed itself. Weakened further by internal rot, its treasury bankrupt, Rome finally succumbed to the barbarians, the Goths, the Huns and the Visigoths. There is mounting evidence now that the U.S. military is already overcommitted and overstressed. It simply does not have the manpower nor the resources to cover the whole globe. The U.S.annual budget for defense is already a very big, nay disproportionate, percentage of the total Federal budget. It is bigger than the combined defense budgets of all other major countries of the world. Critical civilian needs are thus sacrified in favor of the needs of the military in a vain attempt to rein in total Federal spending. The real and actual Federal budget defict for the year ended September 30, 2006 is in the order of $700 billion--not the $300 billion or so which the White House will claim. These yearly budget deficits have ballooned the National Debt, which now stands at the gargantuan total of $8.6 TRILLION! America is going bankrupt and,like the Roman empire of old, may one day find itself so weak as to succumb to the barbarians at the gates. Mariano Patalinjug. MarPatalinjug@aol.com

The Rev wrote:
--What is it all about for the 'pubs who accuse anyone else who does not see things their way of being weak on defense? Answer: It is all about preserving the American Idol/Empire which they are fully intent on controlling. And what is at the heart of the empire, it's the economy!--

Well that myth has had a hole blown in it wouldn't you say? Since the republicans came into control of congress in 1994 the national debt has almost doubled from $4.6T to $8.6T with only $1T accruing under 8 years of Clinton (who balanced the budget by the way) while $3T has accrued under 6 years of Bush (that's 500 billion we have had to borrow from the Chinese each year under Bush). And Bush still has two more years to go. So its obvious the reps do not care about the economy as a whole. The reps also obviously do not care about our troops, their ability to fight, or the ability of America to maintain its fighting force. So I don't see the reps or the dems in anyway working to create an American military empire. If they were you'd see effective and smart use of the money used to keep our military in shape. But all we see is money going to fight a 20th century nuclear war. While I agree anti-missle defense makes sense and should be researched (though not at the billions currently given to it) I cannot fathom why we need new nuclear technologies. The monies spent on new weapons is enormous yet we can't provide armor or hire enough soldiers? The problem IS the military-industrial complex, both feeding from the trough of the other, skewing priorities and leaving the obvious military needs unfulfilled. So in the end we have shinny new missles we do not need and too few soldiers with no body armor and tanks that cannot be repaired fast enough. Any rep today that says they support the military would be laughed at. Any rep today that says they believe in fiscal responsibility would be laughed at.

But reps don't need to say those lies anymore because they have new lies. Today they say they care about embryos, saving christmas from attack, saving the institution of marriage and spying on American terrorists (they're everywhere you know...). They have found these new ways to get elected and then use that power to to enrich themselves and their friends. And that is the ultimate goal, pure greed. I don't see visions of empires in anyone's heads. I see visions of new weapons systems bringing billions of dollars into someone's state. Building an empire would be a long term vision, something Americans do not do well, and republicans can't even think beyond the next fundraiser.

Sully,

As you already know, America was not referred to in the past as a military industrial complex for naught. The industrial part no longer applies; however, America still stands alone as the world's premier military complex and weapon's developer and producer.

You can take all of the nations of the world, past or present, and combine them all together, and they still would not possess the lethality of the current weapons, weapons systems and armaments of the United States of America, and we have more killing machines than any other nation on earth. All of what I am saying and more is verifiable; the Rev hasn't flipped(-:

And in addition to being the world's number one weapons manufacturer and weapons supplier (while denying enemy nation's weapons while we arm America and nations who are friendly to the U.S.A.), we have refused to sign on to agreements proposed at the U.N. that would prevent the proliferation of weapons in space. And we continue to withdraw from treaties that would prevent the development of more sophisticated weapons technology. Why?

The fact is that the United States and Israel have historically opposed any efforts in the United Nations that would prevent or oppose the militarization of space.

What is it all about for the 'pubs who accuse anyone else who does not see things their way of being weak on defense? Answer: It is all about preserving the American Idol/Empire which they are fully intent on controlling. And what is at the heart of the empire, it's the economy!

Regrettably. the solution to problems for too many in the Republican Party is simply to eliminate those who will not submit to the American/Republican way, even Americans. Does it work? Well, just consider Iraq and all of the lives that have been lost there in the past 3-years because of the Republican Party, then ask yourself, are we any closer to solving any problems there, or have things simply spiraled out of control?

Has America been attacked since 911? The answer is yes, on the proxy battlefield that we have set up to draw the flies into in Iraq. There we have lost approximately 3,000 lives with another 40,000 wounded. How many more by Q2 '04?

America has been working on weapons systems for some time now that are planned for use in space. The same weapons will be used to attack interplanetary space travelers and other nations on earth, whereby controlling space. We aren't sending those space shuttles up, like the one that was sent up last week for naught.

If successful, America won't have to worry about any nation on earth's offensive weapons; those nations will simply be hit from outer space. America plans to go beyond unmanned aerial vehicles, radiological dispersal devices, nuclear isomers and the like, to purely space-age laser weapons. Will it happen, probably? If America gets it way, every nation on earth will someday have to submit to Zort, well, whatever name we choose to use for the American Idol leader?

I wonder what name will we give Space America? How about America Space Command? Naw, we can do better than that!

This is African Command thing, is only a cog in the wheel. It's not about defense, it is all about command and control, on the planet now, and off of the planet in due time!

The Rev wrote:
--Sending troops to our largest continent will not compare with the amount of troops that we will sending into outter space in just about another decade or so!--

My daughter just clued me into a new song out by U2 and Green Day called "The Saints are Coming" and refers to what should have happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Check it out on YouTube:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5252204135978695486
Something tells me the younger generation is getting fed up with BushCo and the misplaced priorities and ineptness.

As for troops in space I wonder what they will be protecting. Troops are for the ground. Now weapons in space is another matter. I thought we had a UN treaty against space based weapons. Reagan, that president the republicans love to melt over, also proposed weaponizing space. What is wrong with these republicans? I wonder what they do on weekends when they have nothing to do ... kill small animals for fun is my guess.

USTRANSCOM = United States Transportation Command. It is not Transformation Command

Strategic importance?
How about the strategic importance of our economy?
Or, how about the strategic importance of our broken education, health and welfare systems?

It is clear that once again you seek to distract the masses with your lame attempts of distraction.
Or should I say "job" of distraction?

It is all too obvious that you are a paid media pimp. Face it, your lack of 'true' understanding is and understatement.

Get to the truth..... or get off the line.......

Troops on the moon?

We don't have enough troops to cover our commitments in Iraq or Afghanistan. How are we going to cover the world? What a collection of Idiots!

Posted by: P. J. Casey

Sending troops to our largest continent will not compare with the amount of troops that we will sending into outter space in just about another decade or so!

In Greek mythology wasn't it Eros, who was the son of the God of war, or perhaps it is the U.S.A.!

God help America given all of the social concerns in this country that need to be addressed like healthcare. Awe, we don't have any money for such issues, darn liberals!

I guess our realization that the Colonial Era is over is yet a ways off.
Posted by: Henry Browne

Please don't let Sully and other bloggers hear you say that, for although they mean well, some Americans want to retain their belief in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, apple pie and the good old American way that never was!

If I sound harsh, for those of you who read the canon, its writers, and apparently JC, were much harsher/honest than I with regard to hypocrisy and duplicity!

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Robert Kagan's article in the Washington Post earlier this week:

He, Robert A. Taft, warned against the arrogance and temptations of dominant power, for such power "over other nations, however benevolent its purpose leads inevitably to imperialism".

If we ever will acknowledge America's true motives and its failings, perhaps we will attend to that; then perhaps someday in the future we will be able to succour other nations. However, we can never help others as long as we are a nation in denial.

And we are failing in Iraq, because that venture was based upon lies and fabrications. And we will fail in Africa and every other place, because our motives are not pure at all!

I guess our realization that the Colonial Era is over is yet a ways off. .

Nice talking points. By the way what are you doing reading? Shouldn't you be tuned in to Sean Hannity so you can continue being told what to believe?

Nice talking points. By the way what are you doing reading? Shouldn't you be tuned in to Sean Hannity being told what to rally about this week?

It's the Transportation Command, not the Transformation Command

==I am forever amazed that the left seems to think that the defining purpose of American goverment is to please the rest of the world.==

As a thinking man...you surely must realize that many people define American interests differently than yourself. While to you that means world domination and national or personal enrichment, many think of our interests in terms of peace, ecology, sustainable economy and, yes, social justice.

So, by definition (as they said in my old school), our views of the duties of American government will diverge. While you will insist that the primary duties of the American government is to kill foreigners in order to take their treasure and to frighten others into giving in to our demands, others think that for long-term national benefits and security our government should be pursuing much less beligerent and vicious policies abroad.

The future will surely resolve our differences. We could possibly subjugate the world for a pretty long time yet, if you are right, or alternatively, collapse into an overextended and broken ruin of an empire.

Weak post on the Africa command. No talk on what the command is going to focus on -- mainly training. Also, it's not clear from this post the geographic limits of the command and the need to match up with other USG operations geographically. Sounds like it will not, but very unclear. Also no understanding of exisitng programs in Western Africa and also in the Horn. I'd agree that creating another comand creates more buercracy, but I suspect that Mr. Arkins's sources are from some bitter officers inside of European command taking a last quick shot at Rummie.

We don't have enough troops to cover our commitments in Iraq or Afghanistan. How are we going to cover the world? What a collection of Idiots!

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1526.shtml

BBC VS FOXNEWS

Murdoch megalomania

By Jerry Mazza

James Murdoch, the son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has settled into being not only a mogul, i.e., BSkyB Chief Executive, but is guilty of the same megalomania he accused (with a sweep of his "unseen hand") the BBC of exhibiting.

Reuters via Yahoo reported young James delivered a "withering attack" on the BBC in a speech in London, hosted by UK media regulator Ofcom, the analogue of our FCC. James was trumpeting how "the triumph of the free market surely indicates that broadcasting should be more like other industries."

Well, media is not quite like other industries. Bottom line, media is about winning hearts and minds, not to mention pocketbooks. And the Murdoch family megalomania most often swings opinion to the neocon far-right and/or whatever is lowest common denominator "entertainment." There's nothing free about that.

Nor, given the scope of Sky's activities, does it seem inhibited or a slave of regulation. In fact, it seems to be inhaling the British airwaves in a variety of media enterprises, much like papa's increasing menu of media delectables, which make it the third-largest U.S. media company and growing. And that makes papa a billionaire.

How BSkyB fits in the Murdoch broadcast empire

For starters, Google tells us BSkyB stands for the blend of Sky Television and British Satellite Broadcasting. "Sky is a leading provider of sports, movies, entertainment and news -- whose channels are received by almost 10 million households in the United Kingdom, including 5 million digital satellite subscribers. Sky's majority owned company, Open, is also developing the network's interactive services.

"British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB -- formerly two companies, Sky Television and British Satellite Broadcasting) is a company that operates Sky Digital, the most popular subscription television service in the UK and Ireland. It also produces TV content, and TV channels. It is controlled by 35 percent shareholders News Corporation, an American company chaired by Rupert Murdoch."

In fact, a recent side deal with Liberty Media Corp will help Rupert Murdoch's News Corp as well avoid literally billions in capital gains taxes on their investments in News Corp and DirecTV, respectively. You can hear the gobbling from here.

What's more, papa's Fox Network was acquired in 1995 when the FCC somehow ruled in Murdoch's favor, stating that despite the fact that Fox was owned by News Ltd.'s Australian base (which should be illegal), that it would be "in the public's interest" for Murdoch's ownership to continue in the U.S. I don't personally think watching neocon news and bad sitcoms with a dash of brash episodic TV is really in the "public's interest." I think it's in the interest of the Murdoch cash register.

Wikipedia further reports that "In 1996, Fox established the Fox News Channel, a 24-hour cable news station," which I would consider in the vanguard of reactionary news. "Since its launch it has consistently eroded CNN's market share, and it now bills itself as "the most-watched cable news channel." This is due in part to recent ratings studies, released in the fourth quarter of 2004, showing that the network had nine of the top 10 programs in the 'Cable News' category." By the way, all of this "yellow journalism" licks the boots of administration policies.

"In 1999, Murdoch significantly expanded his music holdings in Australia by acquiring the controlling share in a leading Australian independent label, Michael Gudinski's Mushroom Records; he merged that with Festival Records and the result was Festival Mushroom Records (FMR). Both Festival and FMR were managed by Murdoch's son James for several years." That is until James wanted to expand his horizons. Like papa like son.

In 2003 SKY Italia was acquired. Once again, "free" is the stand-in word here for devouring markets with conservative to reactionary programming. Not unlike our own religious televangelists, notably Pat Robertson, bombarding public consciousness with his world-wide Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). Begun in 1960, it comes with Robertson's own private brand of conservative and political Christianity, a story unto itself, Rapture et al.

The venerable BBC

Returning to James, his railing about being inhibited by the public service BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), which has earned itself a world-wide reputation for quality programming, from news to comedy, drama to documentary, seems disingenuous.

The BBC was established in 1926 (with a current charter running until 2007) as the national public broadcaster of the United Kingdom, and is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world, with a staff of 26,000 in the UK alone and a budget of four billion pounds a year.

True it is a state-owned system, run by a board of governors chosen by the queen on advice of government ministers. Yet the BBC's mandate according to its charter is to "be free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners." Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the banality of Sky or Fox and their conservative ideology? Yes, by far.

Sky as super network

In essence, Sky is a would-be super-network stretching towards every venue. Its latest move in the broadcasting market, according to a Reuters/Yahoo article, is "BSkyB's purchase of a 17.9 percent stake in commercial broadcaster ITV . . . currently being examined by Ofcom. Cable operator NTL, which is set to rebrand itself as Virgin Media, had considered making a bid for ITV, a move that was effectively blocked when rival BSkyB bought the stake.

"NTL's leading shareholder, Richard Branson, said this week he would fight the BSkyB move. 'The Murdoch Empire was, I think, absolutely terrified at the idea of Virgin taking over, because we would have given Sky some real competition . . . '" So there's Murdoch calling the kettle black.

As to Ofcom, let's hope it doesn't go the way of our FCC, particularly during the reign of Michael Powell. FCC regulations were relaxed on the purchase of stations by media empires like Rupert's, and this ended invariably in the sole rule of point of view in any given market. Ofcom at this time does not seem to share that problem.

Ofcom, according to James

Yet, James on his soapbox said "Ofcom should operate with a strong and undiluted bias against regulation because this would allow more innovation . . . We often think of broadcasting as a special case." It is special as I said earlier. But James continues, "Too much regulation resulted in a reduction in human freedom, a corrosion of enterprise and all at a huge cost, estimated in the UK at around 10 to 12 percent of GDP." Rhetoric as empty as his programming.

I don't see Murdoch's empire as a force for human freedom, but rather a potent reactionary force. In England, the Murdochs were censoring the US-imported Simpsons' episodes of any shadow of sexual or drug mention -- to the point where the shows were senseless and viewers complained. That is until the original cuts were returned to the air. As to the loss of GDP from Murdoch TV and reactionary print, I think the UK and America can live with it, quite freely.

So whom do you trust?

Do you trust unregulated big biz? Do you trust government regulation in the absolute? Do you trust stations with religious agendas? Do you trust the money-begging prophets? Do you trust none of them? That's probably a good start. Do you trust what you recognize as quality and distrust what looks like drivel? That's an even better start.

Yet one man's quality is another's poison, and versa visa. So we have a media quagmire: those tugging for truth, art and funding for quality and educational programming and others for endless sports, low-brow entertainment, neoncon agit-prop, a political Jesus and unchecked profit.

You pays your money, you takes your chances. Step right up. It's the greatest show on earth. And perhaps it's the tension between the forces of government, independent stations, religious zealots, conglomerates and indiscriminate viewing that makes for the present movie of our lives. We'll find enough megalomaniacs in each sector to make the movie more than interesting, hellacious or wonderful as the case may be.

Of late, we've seen more of the hellacious than the wonderful. We've also seen a yearning for the "golden age" of television as expressed in Good Night and Good Luck, which is really what it's all about, the right's proclivity to oppress and the left's passionate protest for the real-life freedoms and protections of our Constitution.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.

The creation of a new Africa Command to join the five other regional military commands is far short of a dream Rumsfeld expressed to his aides

Mr. Arkin,

You failed to include America's space command, which if not already, will soon be under the ausptices of the military as well. There is a lot of work and planning going on in order for the U.S.A. to militarize space.

Having said that, in meetings with nationals from many parts of the African continent, I have warned them over and over that they will be better off in the long run, if they were to keep America out of their affairs; Congoleese, Nigerians, Kenyans, South Africans, et al.

Some responded in the words of an African author, we know, for the last time when they came and told us to 'pray', they 'preyed' on the gold, diamonds, et al!

America is intent on controlling the planet, the space over it, the moon, mars and even outer space!

I suspect that the whole world should prepare to experience the smell of napalm, in the morning noon and night!

P.S. Let's send Rumsfeld back to the Olduvai Gorge, for given some of his ideas, it does not appear that he ever left.

More hollow, left-wing criticism on the military huh? How about critiquing Africa Command on whether or not it will serve America's interest and accomplish our goals in the region efficiently and effectively. I am forever amazed that the left seems to think that the defining purpose of American goverment is to please the rest of the world. Thus they continually criticize our foreign policy for "sending the wrong message" or "damaging our global reputation" or other such hollow drivel. What they can't seem to do is show how our foreign policy is bad because it isn't serving America's national interest, how it isn't serving to protect our security and prosperity. The only criticism they can raise is over how other, foreign peoples might view our actions, not what our actions do or don't do for us, the people they are meant to benefit. I find it incredibly ironic that the very people who hate and villify the neocons for wanting to use American power spread democracy and American capitalism around the globe are the same ones who think that American foreign policy should serve these very same foreign countries' interests. Would they still criticize if the neocons had wanted to use American power to give everyone a hug instead of a vote? You can't have it both ways folks, it's either a global American government or it isn't. Either we are using our power to accomplish our interests or we are using it to benefit everyone else. If you try to blend the two you end up playing favorites with foreign countries and watering down your own national interests, neither of which is good in the long run. We must learn to live in the reality that is, not the reality we would like to have.

Trust always in Reason

Archimedes