Henry A. Giroux
Cultural Critic and Public Intellectual

Recent revelations about Trump’s misogyny and acts of violence towards women are now on full display given the recent disclosures regarding his vulgar, crude, sexist exchanges with Howard Stern and Billy Bush. Yet, what is so shocking about the revelations of Trump’s misogyny, sexual violence, and rape charges is that they should provoke any type of surprise.

What is even more disturbing is that the sensationalism over these incidents hide from view the war on women that has been in full bloom since the 1980s. The Leave It to Beaver mindset that women should stay in the home as homemakers, do not deserve equal pay for equal work with men, should be defined primarily as degrading sexual objects, or that they should be excluded from revolutionary movements headed by men were part of “the good old days’ a term brought back to life by Donald Trump.

Coded in Trump’s campaign slogan to make America great again is the ghostly apparition of the return of  the ‘good old days.’ Such a call is  not new to a political party that revels in the discourse of decline and celebrates an era  that resurrects the barbaric discourses and values of an older fascism for which gender discrimination, homophobia, and racial purity became normalized.

If memories of fascism are now reduced to third rate Hollywood films, radical memories of collective resistance seem to die even more quickly in a country wedded to the culture of immediacy and the quickest route to making a profit. This may account, in part, for the social and historical amnesia on display in the country’s refusal to understand Trump as symptomatic of a number of authoritarian, anti-democratic forces that have been at play for a long time and of which Trump unapologetically endorses. These include attacks on women particularly on reproductive rights, on the LGBT community, on poor minority youth, on neighborhoods inhabited by people of color, on teachers and public servants, on students drowning in debt, on a culture of questioning, on dissent, on critical education, on people of color across the globe, on Muslims, Mexican immigrants. They also include attacks on any other group that does not kneel down in homage to a neo-fascist embrace of white supremacy, Christian religious fundamentalism, ultra-nationalism, militarism, the mass incarceration state, and a savage global neoliberal capitalist fundamentalism. America is at war with itself and Trump is simply one despicable register of that war on democracy. What is distinctive about Trump is that he is shrill and unapologetic about his neo-fascist beliefs and policies whereas Hillary Clinton and the rest of the neoliberal centrists wrap their war mongering policies and support for the financial elite in the empty discourse of liberalism with a disingenuous nod towards social justice and democratic values. The embrace of his overt sexism and racism by large numbers of his followers does not augur well for the future of American politics. Needless to say, Trump is not the only politician who benefits from the death of historical memory and the current fog of social amnesia—all of which has produced an accelerated attack on not only women but on African Americans.

What is truly appalling is that, with the exception of the Black Lives Matter movement and Black protest movements, so little is said about the racism that is part of the long legacy of in your face racism that has emerged with the Trump campaign, a racism that the Republican Party has been nurturing since Nixon’s southern strategy and Reagan’s war on drugs, and later adopted by Bill Clinton’s disastrous law and order polices which produced the worst excesses of the current mass incarceration state.

Throughout his primary and presidential campaign, Trump invoked a language of racist violence that could only be understood in the historical context of the state repression unleashed in the fifties, sixties, and seventies in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and other states where expressions of white supremacy, domestic terrorism, and police violence exploded in full view of the American people and larger world. On numerous occasions Trump told his backers: “to knock the crap out of them [Black Lives Matter protesters], seriously, get them out of here. In the good old days this doesn’t happen because they use to treat them very rough and when they protested once they would not do it again so easily. I’d like to punch them in the face, I’ll tell you. I love the good old days. You know what they use to do to guys like that in a place like this? They would be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”[i]

The backdrop of this discourse reaches back into a time of racist terror and was captured in images of the young Black protesters being beaten by police and white patrons when they tried to integrate lunch counters in cities such as Nashville, Tennessee and Greenville, North Carolina. It was also on full display when black protesters were attacked by police dogs in Detroit, hosed down by high power water cannons in Alabama, and when nine young African American students were taunted and shoved as they attempted to enter the all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The latter are “the good old days” that Trump celebrates in his speeches–when protesters were “ripped out of their seat,” “punched in the face,” and “would be carried out on a stretcher.”[ii] These “good old days” also gave us lynchings, the murder of Emmett Till, the church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama that killed four young black girls. The “good old days” in this context serve as a legitimization not only for a ruthless return to racist terror and the suppression of dissent, but the celebration of a type of lawlessness endemic to fascism and updated for the new authoritarianism.

What is being suggested here is that this American form of neo-fascism in its various forms is largely about social and racial cleansing and its end point is the construction of prisons, detention centers, enclosures, walls, and all the other varieties of murderous apparatus that accompany the discourse of national greatness and racial purity. Americans have lived through 40 years of the dismantling of the welfare state, the elimination of democratic public spheres such as schools and libraries, and the attack on public goods and social provisions. In their place, we have the rise of the punishing state, with its support for a range of criminogenic institutions extending from banks and hedge funds to state governments and militarized police departments that depend on extortion to meet their budgets.

Where are the institutions that do not support a rabid individualism, a culture of cruelty, and a society based on social combat — that refuse to militarize social problems, and reject the white supremacist discourses, laws and practices spreading throughout the United States? What happens when a society is shaped by a poisonous neoliberalism that separates economic and individual economic actions from social costs, when privatization becomes the only sanctioned orbit for agency, when values are entirely reduced to exchange values?

Notes.

[i] These quotes have been compiled along with historical context that give them meaning in Ava DuVernay’s brilliant film, 13^th, which is available on Netflix.

[ii] Ibid., Ava DuVernay, director, 13^th.

Co-published at CounterPunch.

Henry A. Giroux, Contributing Editor

Currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His books include: Zombie Politics and Culture in the Age of Casino Capitalism (Peter Land 2011), On Critical Pedagogy (Continuum, 2011), Twilight of the Social: Resurgent Publics in the Age of Disposability (Paradigm 2012), Disposable Youth: Racialized Memories and the Culture of Cruelty (Routledge 2012), Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013). Giroux’s most recent books are America’s Education Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013), are Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education, America’s Disimagination Machine (City Lights) and Higher Education After Neoliberalism (Haymarket) will be published in 2014). He is also a Contributing Editor of Cyrano’s Journal Today / The Greanville Post, and member of Truthout’s Board of Directors and has his own page The Public Intellectual. His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

=By= David Cromwell

[Graphic Credit: Media Lens.]

Awkward facts that erode the ‘benign humanitarian’ self-image of the West are routinely side-lined or buried by the corporate media. Consider, for example, the severe impact of sanctions imposed on Syria by the United States and the European Union.

An internal United Nations assessment, revealed on September 28 by Rania Khalek in The Intercept, makes clear that the sanctions are punishing ordinary Syrians and preventing vital aid, including medical supplies, from reaching those in dire need. Access has been denied for blood safety equipment, medicines, medical devices, food, fuel, water pumps and spare parts for power plants, amongst other items.

Khalek notes that the internal assessment, which was prepared for the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, describes:

‘the U.S. and EU measures as “some of the most complicated and far-reaching sanctions regimes ever imposed.” Detailing a complex system of “unpredictable and time-consuming” financial restrictions and licensing requirements, the report finds that U.S. sanctions are exceptionally harsh “regarding provision of humanitarian aid.”‘

US sanctions on Syrian banks have made the transfer of funds into Syria ‘nearly impossible’. This has had a two-fold effect:

1. Aid groups have been unable to pay local staff and suppliers which has delayed or prevented aid from reaching those in need.

2. An unofficial and unregulated financial network has proliferated, making it easier for ISIS and al Qaeda to divert funds undetected.

Khalek also reports that a leaked email from ‘a key UN official’ blamed US and EU sanctions for contributing to food shortages and weakened health care. In particular:

‘sanctions had contributed to a doubling in fuel prices in 18 months and a 40 percent drop in wheat production since 2010, causing the price of wheat flour to soar by 300 percent and rice by 650 percent.’

The UN official cited sanctions as a ‘principal factor’ in the erosion of Syria’s health care system. Khalek adds:

‘Medicine-producing factories that haven’t been completely destroyed by the fighting have been forced to close because of sanctions-related restrictions on raw materials and foreign currency’.

The US first imposed sanctions on Syria in 1979, after designating its government ‘a State Sponsor of Terrorism’. Over time, further sanctions were added with more extreme restrictions imposed in 2011 after the Syrian government used deadly violence against protesters. In 2013, sanctions were eased, but only in areas that opposed President Assad. As Khalek notes:

‘Around the same time, the CIA began directly shipping weapons to armed insurgents at a colossal cost of nearly $1 billion a year, effectively adding fuel to the conflict while U.S. sanctions obstructed emergency assistance to civilians caught in the crossfire.’

When Khalek challenged the US State Department about the devastating impact of sanctions on war-torn Syria, where 13 million people are dependent on humanitarian assessment, she was fed a statement ‘which recycled talking points that justified sanctions against Iraq in [the] 1990s’:

‘U.S. sanctions against [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad], his backers, and the regime deprive these actors of resources that could be used to further the bloody campaign Assad continues to wage against his own people’.

The same specious propaganda arguments were used by the West, notably the United States and Britain, to ‘justify’ barbaric sanctions against Iraq from 1990 to 2003, following the first Gulf War. Leading politicians and officials in the West claimed that the sanctions were aimed at punishing and containing Saddam. But the victims were the Iraqi people themselves. In 1999, the United Nations’ Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reported that the mortality rate for children under five in Iraq had doubled. In all, half a million young Iraqi children died as a result. Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, infamously declared that ‘the price is worth it’.

Given the terrible consequences in Iraq under the crippling UN embargo, the United States government is no doubt perfectly aware of the impact of sanctions on the Syrian people. Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, observes:

‘Sanctions have a terrible effect on the people more than the regime and Washington knows this from Iraq. But there’s pressure in Washington to do something and sanctions look like you’re doing something.’

Hans von Sponeck, who resigned from his post as the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad in 2000, accused Washington and London of ‘knowingly maintaining conditions of misery’ in Iraq under sanctions. (Hans von Sponeck, ‘A Different Kind of War: The UN Sanctions Regime in Iraq’, Berghahn, 2006, p. 27). We are not supposed to believe that ‘our’ governments would do such a heinous thing. And, indeed, von Sponeck’s book was essentially ignored by the western media. It has never been reviewed by any major UK newspaper, and has literally been mentioned only once (by Robert Fisk in the Independent).

As well as the current punitive sanctions on Syria, Khalek also notes that:

‘in cities controlled by ISIS, the U.S. has employed some of the same tactics it condemns. For example, U.S.-backed ground forces laid siege to Manbij, a city in northern Syria not far from Aleppo that is home to tens of thousands of civilians. U.S. airstrikes pounded the city over the summer, killing up to 125 civilians in a single attack. The U.S. also used airstrikes to drive ISIS out of Kobane, Ramadi, and Fallujah, leaving behind flattened neighborhoods. In Fallujah, residents resorted to eating soup made from grass and 140 people reportedly died from lack of food and medicine during the siege.’

An honest media would report all this with headline coverage and include much critical analysis in editorials and opinion pieces. They would also ask searching questions of the British Prime Minister and other leading politicians. Needless to say, this has not happened. Indeed, our searches have revealed just one newspaper article covering the report’s assessment that US and EU sanctions are contributing to the terrible suffering of the Syrian people. Patrick Cockburn reported in the Independent:

‘the US and EU sanctions are imposing an economic siege on Syria as a whole which may be killing more Syrians than die of illness and malnutrition in the sieges which EU and US leaders have described as war crimes. Over half the country’s public hospitals have been damaged or destroyed.’

We found nothing on the BBC News website.

Even when the Guardian trumpeted an ‘exclusive’ on September 30 (two days after Rania Khalek’s piece in The Intercept) that more than 80% of UN aid convoys in Syria had been blocked or delayed, there was nothing about the crippling effect on aid by US and EU sanctions. There was a single passing mention to these sanctions, but only in the context of heaping blame on the official enemy Assad:

‘the UN has awarded contracts worth tens of millions of dollars to individuals closely associated with Assad, including businesspeople whose companies are under US and EU sanctions.’

We asked Nick Hopkins, the author of the Guardian article, to explain why his ‘exclusive’ had ignored criticism of US and EU sanctions (here and here). He did not respond. Hopkins, a former BBC journalist, had also remained silent when we challenged him in 2011 about a propaganda piece on Iran. Likewise, he ignored us in 2013 when we challenged him to justify misinforming Guardian readers that merely ‘tens of thousands’ had died in Iraq following the 2003 invasion by US-led forces.

These are just a tiny sample of the myriad examples that reveal the Guardian‘s role as a liberal gatekeeper of acceptable views in the ‘mainstream’. Bear this in mind the next time you see an online Guardian advert pleading:

‘Producing in-depth, thoughtful, well-reported journalism is difficult and expensive – but supporting us isn’t. If you value the Guardian’s international coverage, please help to fund our journalism by becoming a supporter.’

Support journalism that regularly buries Western crimes? Smears Jeremy Corbyn and the public movement behind him? And promotes a ‘liberal’ view of climate-wrecking capitalism? No thanks.

David Cromwell, was born in Glasgow in 1962; studied natural philosophy and astronomy, then a PhD in solar physics; spell with Shell in the Netherlands, then a research position in oceanography in Southampton; left in 2010 to work full-time on Media Lens; author of Why Are We The Good Guys? (Zero Books, 2012); co-author, with David Edwards, of two Media Lens books: Guardians of Power (Pluto Books, 2006) and Newspeak In the 21st Century (Pluto Books, 2009); author of Private Planet (Jon Carpenter Publishing, 2001); co-editor, with Mark Levene, of Surviving Climate Change (Pluto Books, 2007).

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

=By= Endalk

A combination of smoke bombs and live bullets from security forces at the largest gathering for the Irreecha holiday in the Ethiopian state Oromia triggered a deadly stampede on Sunday, October 2. At least 52 people were killed, according to the government, but a major opposition activist group said the death toll is as high 600 people.

Separately, an unspecified number of people were killed in numerous other towns across Oromia, Ethiopia’s largest state, as the news prompted fresh protests, the activist group said, and hundreds were arrested over the weekend.

Demonstrations have taken place with regular frequency in Oromia since November 2015, demanding greater self-rule, freedom and respect for the ethnic identity of the Oromo people, who have experienced systematic marginalization and persecution over the last quarter century. Authorities have used deadly force against the protesters on more than one occasion.

What triggered the Irreecha stampede?

The bloody incident on Sunday occurred at Lake Hora, considered ritual ground, in a town called Bishoftu, about 48 kilometers south east of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital. Hundreds of thousands of people were estimated to have gathered from every corner of Ethiopia not only for Irreecha, a holiday that marks the beginning of the new season of harvests in Oromia, but also to stage a peaceful protest.

The streets of Bishoftu and the fields around Lake Hora were lined with thousands of people who were waiting to place green grass and flowers on the shore of the lake, an Irreecha ritual that marks the beginning of the new season. At the same time, there was also a heavy presence of security forces dressed in riot gear and gas masks, bearing long truncheons and guns with military vehicles. Some participants chanted as they moved through the area, holding up their arms into an X — a sign used by the Oromo people to protest against repression by the Ethiopian government.

At the venue, when a government official tried to make a speech before the Irreecha procession, protesters preempted him in a chaotic confrontation. A video captures a protester taking the stage and leading the public in a chant, “down, down TPLF”. TPLF stands for Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, the main party in the ruling coalition of Ethiopia.

Then, a series of shots rang out around the area. Meanwhile, a helicopter hovered above the gathering. Chaos erupted as marchers fled to seek shelter. “People started scattering in every direction screaming and yelling that ‘they were shooting causing a large number of people to fall over a cliff,” a survivor who was at the scene told me.

Why Irreecha?

Irreecha is the most popular festival in Oromia and is known for its emphasis on an indigenous cultural and religious practice of the Oromos, the single largest ethnic group in Ethiopia. In this way, the biannual celebration of Irreecha is intertwined with the politics of performing what it means to be Oromo.

In addition, for many years now, opposition Oromo activists have been explicitly expressing their discontent with the Ethiopian politico-economic system at Irreecha events. Even during the earlier times of quieter political activism, attendees of Irreecha events in Oromia openly declared their allegiance to banned Oromo political parties such as the Oromo Liberation Front. Making political statements at Irreecha events emerged out of the feelings of decades of marginalization and dispossession.

However, the 2016 Irreecha celebration was even more charged than usual because it came at a time of mourning those who have died over the last 11 months while protesting. By some counts, at least 700 people have been killed in relation with the ongoing protests in 2016. Since November 2015, reports of a person being shot, arrested or subjected to a violent harassment from security forces have surfaced on a daily basis.

On Sunday, the Oromo people had converted Irreecha into a place to celebrate their identity, but also to show their grievances. The violence there has shaken Ethiopia, as it appears to be the first assault by security forces on a major cultural and religious ritual of the Oromo people as well as among the most brutal crackdowns ever perpetrated specifically against the Oromo identity. The incident was probably intended to intimidate the persisting protests in Oromia as well as similar ones in the state of Amhara, to say the Ethiopian government is powerful entity and anyone who dares to challenge it will suffer.

Source: Global Voices.

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

Rowan Wolf, PhD
Voice of Conscience

Trump’s entourage. It certainly doesn’t look like his tastes and proclivities have changed.

Can it be true that after all of that has transpired in Trump’s campaign, all of the hatred and vulgarity, that “lewd” “boy talk” is going the bring him down? Is it really a surprise that he made (and I imagine still makes) such conversation and engages in exploitative behavior? I do not find the video and these revelations at all unexpected, regardless of how disgusting and outrageous. In fact, it is all part of the same cloth of the man as he has portrayed himself for decades.

The part of this video that should be getting the most attention is not the lewd talk and behavior. It is the following two sentences:

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

It is these two sentences that reveal how Trump uses (abuses) power. Further, the more power he has, the more he is likely to abuse it. His egotistical nature, his over the top narcissism has been blatantly obvious. Even with his so called apology he does not deny himself or his behavior – only his words (my empahsis), and then turns the apology into an attack:

I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me, know these words don’t reflect who I am.

People are concerned about Trump’s “lewd” remarks. What bothers me is that it is clear that Trump (and Billy Bush) see women as objects. We are just there for their pleasure and abuse. We have no control, and no say. These powerful men can do whatever they fantasize, and everyone will either go along, or look the other way and pretend that nothing has happened. For that is the true power of wealth and celebrity. The world is your playground, and the people in it (particularly the women) are mere pwns for ones needs and desires.

Bait and Switch?

So now the Republican establishment are calling for Trump0 (who they have backed even though they know he is ethically challenged and corrupt as hell) to step down and to put Pence in his place. Was this the back room plan all along? To let Trump draw a dedicated fringe into the party, and to generate a right-of -conservative populism, and then to drop Trump and put in someone else?

You have to wonder if things could get more strange.

Below are the video and transcript of the 2005 exchange.

Transcript from the LA Times:
Donald Trump: You know and—

Unidentified voice: She used to be great. She’s still very beautiful.

Trump: I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married.

Unidentified voice: That’s huge news there.

Trump: No, no. Nancy. No this was— And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture– I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple.

Trump: Whoa!

Bush: Yes. Yes, the Donald has scored!

Trump: Whoa!

Bush: Whoa, my man!

Unidentified voice: Wait, wait you’ve got to look at me when you get out and be like … will you give me the thumbs up? You’ve got to put the thumbs up.

[crosstalk]

Trump: Look at you. You are a pussy.

[crosstalk]

Unidentified voice: You’ve got to get the thumbs up. You can’t be too happy, man.

Trump: Alright, you and I will walk down.

[crosstalk]

Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.

Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s her. It’s her.

Trump: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

[crosstalk and chuckling]

Unidentified voice: Yeah those legs, all I can see is the legs.

Trump: Oh, it looks good.

Unidentified voice: Come on, shorty.

Trump: Oh, nice legs, huh?

Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.

Trump: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford. Gerald Ford, remember?

Bush: Down below. Pull the handle.

Trump: Hello. How are you? Hi.

Arianne Zucker: Hi Mr. Trump. How are you? Pleasure to meet you.

Trump: Nice seeing you. Terrific, terrific. You know Billy Bush?

Bush: Hello, nice to see you. How are you doing, Arianne?

Zucker: I’m doing very well, thank you. [To Trump] Are you ready to be a soap star?

Trump: We’re ready, let’s go. Make me a soap star.

Bush: How about a little hug for the Donald? He just got off the bus.

Zucker: Would you like a little hug, darling?

Trump: Okay, absolutely. Melania said this was okay.

Bush: How about a little hug for the Bushy? I just got off the bus. There we go. Excellent. Well, you’ve got a nice co-star here.

Zucker: Yes. Absolutely.

Trump: Good. After you. Come on, Billy. Don’t be shy.

Bush: As soon as a beautiful woman shows up, he just, he takes off on me. This always happens.

Trump: Get over here Billy.

Zucker: I’m sorry, come here.

Bush: Let the little guy in here, come on.

Zucker: Yeah, let the little guy in. How you feel now? Better?

Bush: It’s hard to walk next to a guy like this.

Zucker: I should actually be in the middle.

Bush: Yeah, you get in the middle. There we go.

Trump: Good, that’s better.

Zucker: This is much better. This is—

Trump: That’s better.

Bush: Now, if you had to choose, honestly, between one of us: me or the Donald? Who would it be?

Trump: I don’t know, that’s tough competition.

Zucker: That’s some pressure right there.

Bush: Seriously, you had to take one of us as a date.

Zucker: I have to take the 5th on that one.

Bush: Really?

Zucker: Yup. I’ll take both.

Trump: Which way?

Zucker: Make a right. Here we go. [inaudible]

Bush: Here he goes. I’m going to leave you here. Give me my microphone.

Trump: Okay okay. Oh, you’re finished?

Bush: You’re my man. Yeah.

Trump: Oh good.

Bush: I’m going to go do our show.

Zucker: Oh, you want to reset? Okay.

Rowan Wolf, PhD

Is Managing Editor of The Greanville Post and Director of The Russian Desk. She is a sociologist, writer and activist with life long engagement in social justice, peace, environmental, and animal rights movements. Her research and writing includes issues of imperialism, oppression, global capitalism, peak resources, global warming, and environmental degradation. Rowan taught sociology for twenty-two years, was a member of the City of Portland’s Peak Oil Task Force, and maintains her own site Uncommon Thought Journal. She may be reached by email at rowanwolf@greanvillepost.com

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

=By=
Crofton Black

British companies have earned more than $60 billion from US military contracts since President Obama came to power eight years ago, a Bureau analysis of Pentagon spending has found.

As the Bureau exclusively revealed on Sunday, controversial UK public relations firm Bell Pottinger received over half a billion dollars to run a top secret propaganda programme in Iraq following the US invasion.

But Bell Pottinger’s windfall represents only a fraction of what the Pentagon has paid British firms.

Between 2009 and the end of 2015, total spending by the Department of Defense (DoD) on goods and services from the private sector at large was more than $2.3 trillion. The vast majority went to companies based in the US, but the Bureau’s calculations show British companies got at least $1 in every $40 spent by the DoD.

The Bureau’s findings were drawn from a trawl of over 11 million transactions between the Pentagon and commercial suppliers. Each transaction record includes a description of goods or services purchased, the sum of money paid for them, which branch of the DoD is paying, and which company is providing them. We identified UK-based companies and then ran fresh searches to establish sales by branches of the same companies based in other countries.

Between them, these 10 companies were paid $58bn, the Bureau’s analysis shows. Two-thirds of the overall total was spent on BAE products from its UK and US-based divisions.

BAE’s income was from military hardware and software, while Rolls Royce’s was from aircraft engines and spares. BP’s $5.7bn came from fuel sales.

Outsourcing giant Serco Group’s $2.7bn of contracts included testing High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse protection systems, used to screen sensitive electronics from nuclear detonations and radio interference.

Qinetiq Group – which was part of the Ministry of Defence before being privatised in 2001 – made over $1.8bn. High-selling systems included the Talon bomb disposal robot.

Two-thirds of DoD’s total spend with UK companies went to BAE Systems

SOF personnel in Iraq.

Technology firm Cobham PLC received contracts worth over $1.3bn, including work on a Special Operations Command project identified as “hostile forces tagging, tracking and locating”.

Security provider G4S sold services at US military facilities in Guantánamo Bay and on the island of Diego Garcia, as well as in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Germany and elsewhere.

Dorset-based global engineering group Meggitt PLC was awarded contracts for aircraft parts, targeting and training systems, while Middlesex’s Ultra Electronics provided submarine detection systems and acoustic torpedo countermeasure devices.

Pearson Engineering of Newcastle-upon-Tyne sold the Pentagon a mine-clearing system which bolts onto the front of a vehicle to trigger improvised explosive devices before the vehicle reaches them.

A longstanding and specialised family-owned firm in Uxbridge, Martin-Baker Engineering, received more than $400 million in contracts for its ejector seats. The company has been privately owned by the Martin family since the 1930s and is highly profitable: it paid interim dividends of £40m in 2015. Pentagon orders accounted for roughly a third of its turnover between 2009 and 2015.

Aegis Defence Services, set up by former British Army officer Tim Spicer in 2002, was awarded $335m of work, including for security teams in Iraq. The company was bought by Canadian conglomerate GardaWorld in 2015.

Outside the big hitters, smaller British companies have provided more niche goods and services to the US military.

A defensive wall system patented by Hesco Bastion – the “Concertainer” – has proved popular in Iraq and Afghanistan. Concertainer units are made of wire mesh and textile, shipped flatpacked, then filled with sand or earth at their destination. Some $194m of sales are recorded from 2009 onwards.

Other smaller companies have also seen cash infusions from the Pentagon. Mil-Ken Travel Ltd, a Cambridge based coach hire company, earned $14.8m in the period for transport services on US Air Force bases in East Anglia, while D. and F. McCarthy, a fruit and veg wholesaler, earned $12.4m.

The Ministry of Defence also appears on the list of contract winners. Over the time period covered it received $65m for services provided out of its top secret Porton Down biological weapons research site in Wiltshire.

This investigation is part of a series by the Bureau looking at the use of military contractors worldwide. If you have any stories or tips please email croftonblack@tbij.com

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?