An economics professor at Drake (Ismael Hossein-zadeh, an ethnic Kurd from Iran, by the way) has some interesting and relevant thoughts in a well-reviewed book that came out last year called "The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism", http://www.amazon.com/Political-Economy-U-S-Militarism/dp/0230602282/ref=ed_oe_p/105-9360914-5760441. His web page, with links to recent writings, is here: http://www.cbpa.drake.edu/hossein-zadeh/default.htm

In a recent article "Parasitic Imperialism", he concludes (emphasis added):

"Although immoral, external military operations of past empires often proved profitable, and therefore justifiable on economic grounds. Military actions abroad usually brought economic benefits not only to the imperial ruling classes, but also (through "trickle-down" effects) to their citizens. Thus, for example, imperialism paid significant dividends to Britain, France, the Dutch, and other European powers of the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. As the imperial economic gains helped develop their economies, they also helped improve the living conditions of their working people and elevate the standards of living of their citizens.

"This pattern of economic gains flowing from imperial military operations, however, seems to have somewhat changed in the context of the recent U.S. imperial wars of choice, especially in the post-Cold War period. Moralities aside, U.S. military expeditions and operations of late are not justifiable even on economic grounds. Indeed, escalating U.S. military expansions and aggressions have become ever more wasteful, cost-inefficient, and burdensome to the overwhelming majority of its citizens.

"Therefore, recent imperial policies of the United States can be called parasitic imperialism because such policies of aggression are often prompted not so much by a desire to expand the empire's wealth beyond the existing levels, as did the imperial powers of the past, but by a desire to appropriate the lion's share of the existing wealth and treasure for the military establishment, especially for the war-profiteering Pentagon contractors. It can also be called dual imperialism because not only does it exploit the conquered and the occupied abroad but also the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens and their resources at home.

Since imperial policies abroad are widely discussed by others, I will focus here on parasitic military imperialism at home, that is, on what might be called domestic or internal imperialism. Specifically, I will argue that parasitic imperialism (1) redistributes national income or resources in favor of the wealthy; (2) undermines the formation of public capital (both physical and human); (3) weakens national defenses against natural disasters; (4) accumulates national debt and threatens economic/financial stability; (5) spoils external or foreign markets for non-military U.S. transnational capital; (6) undermines civil liberties and democratic values; and (7) fosters a dependence on or addiction to military spending and, therefore, leads to an spiraling vicious circle of war and militarism."

The vast amounts flowing to huge defense contractors in all states is the chief reason that the Dems refuse to stand up to Bush, and politics in Washington has generally become simply a fight over the spoils of the federal budget and other government largess. Because the Dems are not that much different, they have a tough time pretending that they are more responsible. And as the media is itself owned by large conglomerates, they have little interest in rocking the boat by standing up to either politicians, the military establishment or the corporate or Israel lobby, but are content to feed Americans pap, and individual reporters of course have more to gain from sucking up to the power brokers than in offending them.

Increasingly, elites are running the country for their own selfish interests. Wars and the fear they stir up better allows elites to further squeeze and control all of us (via the PATRIOT Act, domestic spying, data mining, a “Real ID” and citizen chipping, etc.).

By the way, Hossein-zadeh also specifically analyzed these factors with respect to Iran last year: "Behind the plan to bomb Iran" (8/31/06), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14771.htm.

I just saw (9/2/07) an ad by homeland security. It was very touching. Little kids asking their parents if they shouldn't have some sort of plan if the terrorists attacked. Isn't the timing of this peculiar? I have never seen any other ad of this sort. Is this just another way to pump up the fear level before a) the Sept reports or b) an attack on Iran?

Glenn,

I find the whole idea of an Iran war totally incredible beyond belief. However that describes so many of this administrations follies that I am afraid it could actually happen.

This presidency has been quite amazing hasn't it... I think if anyone who would have predicted the state we’re in back in 2000 they would have been laughed off. I do think many people are now feeling the same of these Iran rumors.

Thank you for your work good work in writing this article.

Fight the power,

Johnny

Seriously, do you any of you believe that after our three-day attack to destroy Iran's military capability, we're just going to go away?

No, the only reason to destroy Iran's military capability, rather than their nuclear capability, is for an invasion.

Now, what do you think Russia and China do when the United States controls the oil in Iran (let alone by proxy in Iraq), one of the top oil producing countries in the world? Do you really believe they are just going to sit idly by while their strategic oil interests are in our control?

Russia still has ICBMs, and China now has nuclear ballistic missile submarines. If you're looking to start WWIII and kill us all, attacking Iran is just the way to do it.

But of course, Bush doesn't care: he believes we're living in the end-times, and he's determined to see his beliefs come true. And he could very well do it.

Save yourselves, save our planet. Do everything you can to stop George Bush today, before it's too late. And if that means armed insurrection by the people against their government, so be it.

Boy, is my face red. I should have included what Shooter wrote: "So to sum up, war isn't what it used to be, and bombing is disciplinary. On the other hand, the leaderships of countries bombed aren't hurt, and their countries remain intact. "Sovereign" as you would say. That's the reality on the ground. What one calls it is something open for discussion."

And what I wanted to point out was . . .

this kind of logic is exactly what 9/11 was all about.

And it also shows us what these wingnuts are into -- Discipline. Big daddy. But, 'discussion'? I think not, Shooter. You people don't 'discuss'.