---

CR: As retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern noted some time ago, the ruling MIC(Military Industrial Complex) is now more correctly enlarged to the MICIMATT(Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academia Think Tank)complex. Even as prescient as Eisenhower was over 60 years ago in warning how these war profiteering special interests would soon be the tail wagging the dog (i.e.whatever bit of democracy remains in the U.S.), that former president could not foresee the insatiable bloodthirstiness of the monster he and his post-WWII cronies had created, constantly bellowing “Feed Me!” right out of the “Little Shop of Horrors.”

Q. We’ve had decades of international tensions. Recent developments have seen a sharp escalation in the potential for a major war. The U.S. apparently cannot be at peace. “Threats” against the homeland are allegedly increasing in number and severity. The trajectory of our relations with the rest of the world appears to be more confrontations, more enemies, more crises, and more wars. Is the world really that full of aggressors, bad actors, and ruthless opponents? Or is there something in our own policies and attitudes toward other countries which puts us at odds with them, thus making war inevitable and peace impossible?

CR: The latest example of this is how US and allied officials usually stop short of calling their arming, training and intelligence directions given to Ukrainian fighters to “weaken Russia,” actual “war,” while various Russian officials have seen through these games and sugarcoated rhetoric to rightly conclude that the US-NATO IS waging an extremely destructive war on Russia via its Ukrainian proxies. Of course, current wars on Russia (and threatened war on China) can get a lot worse, given these nuclear superpowers all have thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at each other and especially having already included the dangerous bombing of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, sabotage of Nordstream pipelines, threatened use of false flag "dirty bombs," etc. Dueling war propaganda machines and the fog of war allow both sides to effectively blame each other for this potential suicide certain to spread to other parts of Europe, if not to the rest of the world. ⁽¹⁾

The U.S. (similar to past empires throughout history) has long been waging illegal wars of aggression and conducting violent coups overturning foreign governments in order to retain “full spectrum dominance” or what it calls its “unipolar power” over the rest of the world. The problem is that the American empire has reached its twilight with its economic power and soft power “leadership” waning while its main economic rival China continues to grow in economic (and other soft power as well as in military power). So U.S. unipolar power strategists feel compelled to increasingly resort to more and more reckless use of hard military force (and accompanying war propaganda, given that part of U.S. "soft power," its control of Western Media is still at an all-point high) to compensate. China’s best efforts these last several years (ever since the U.S. announced its military “pivot” to China) arguing for a “win-win” mindset and multipolar coexistence to avoid this Thucydides Trap (the apparent tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as a regional or international hegemon) have seemingly fallen on deaf ears. Naturally, the illegal war aggression and hypocrisy that goes with war propaganda has resulted in China and Russia becoming quite aligned in their resistance to US hegemony, preparing to fight in defense of their countries as they have little other option if the U.S. continues on its destructive path to full spectrum dominance/hegemony. See Jeffrey Sachs’ piece opinion |The West’s Dangerously Simple-Minded Narrative About Russia and China | Common Dreams.

Q. Our leaders relentlessly talk about our “national interests” and our “national security”, warning that both are under constant assault. Yet, we spend more than the next nine countries combined on our military. Why does such colossal spending never seem to be enough?

CR: I think the main reasons for U.S. spending trillions of dollars—money it doesn’t really have but just prints, hugely increasing the national debt and hollowing out the economy---on its military and weapons systems are not due to actual security threats but to the insatiable greed of weapons and military corporations which have effectively corrupted US politicians and created the MICIMATT monster described above. Most American citizens have not cared enough about ending this wasteful spending on US perpetual war because the various costs of war were made effectively invisible to them by ending the military draft, not raising taxes to actually pay for the wars, and by relying on the aerial bombing of foreign lands and use of foreign proxy forces (to even include terrorist and neo-Nazi groups) which only kill foreign people and destroy foreign lands—see my piece: Recipe Concocted for Perpetual War is a Bitter One – ConsortiumNews

If the U.S. dollar ever loses its status as the world’s reserve currency—with indications that this is already beginning to happen--it would seriously erode its ability to wantonly and endlessly print money and go further into debt. But of course that fear also fuels an ever more desperate U.S. to wage war to try to achieve hegemonic power, so that the dollar stays as the world’s reserve currency making U.S. debt irrelevant.

CR: A lot of the answer to this question depends upon how one defines “security” and “rightful place in the world community.” Those in charge of US foreign policy going back to George Kennan’s famous post-WWII “containment” strategy would’ve defined both terms as maintaining the incredible “disparity” of the U.S. then having only “6.2% of the world’s population yet controlling 50% of the world’s wealth.”However, that advantageous (and exploitive) economic power spot has constantly decreased since being declared in 1948. It would seem that the more desperate the U.S. has become to maintain its economic power over the rest of the world, eventually disregarding Kennan’s advice to rely on “soft power,” instead resorting to the use of extremely costly hard military force wars and nefarious violent regime change coups, the more economic power it has lost, to the point that, according to Sachs, the U.S. now with 4.2% of the world’s population, has a mere 16% of world GDP. That's still some disparity but it's rapidly eroding. On top of that loss of economic power, U.S. wars of aggression (euphemistically referred to as “wars of choice” but the “supreme crime” per the Nuremberg Principles), involved numerous egregious war crimes, including illegal threats of launching nuclear bombs, which have eroded US moral leadership making it very hard, if not impossible for U.S. diplomats and other officials to lecture other countries to follow“international law” given US double-standards and hypocrisy or to have any confidence or trust in the U.S. abiding by international law, given its refusal to submit to international jurisdiction and its pulling out of so many past international treaties.

Of course, perched as we are on the brink of nuclear destruction, just seconds to midnight on the “Doomsday Clock,” no one in the world right now really possesses any actual “security.” So I would think economic interests need to take a back seat. For the U.S. to become serious about regaining security, this should be the top focus, to reduce the threat of global annihilation instead of the current delusions of US-UK leaders that they can “win” a nuclear war. Restoring a world order based on international law prohibiting the launching of wars of choice and respect for national sovereignty as well as some other very minimum standards would go along way towards restoring our "rightful place in the world community" whatever that is.

Q. The general public, especially when it’s aware of the self-sabotaging results of our current foreign policies and military posturing, clearly wants less war and militarism, preferring more peaceful alternatives on the world stage and greater concentration on solving the problems at home. As peace activists, we are thus more in line with the majority of citizens on issues of war and peace, than those currently in power.

What happens if we determine that those shaping current U.S. policy don’t care what the citizenry thinks, are simply not listening to us? What if we conclude that our Congress, for example, is completely deaf to the voice of the people? What do we do? What are our options then? What are the next concrete steps for political activists working toward a peaceful future?

CR: If, if, if, if only there was some way to effectively inform people of this reality when Big Media and social media are so effectively controlled by the Government's machine. The MICIMATT has not only unfortunately corrupted nearly all U.S. government officials but it has also effectively brainwashed its own citizens (especially via US wars being made to seem totally cost-free to Americans) and via the cultivation of the two-party "divide and conquer" political partisanship. Officials whose hubris has blinded them and who are now so drunk on power, do believe they can make their own reality. Americans are neither informed of nor concerned about the “self-sabotaging” consequences of "perpetual war" that are boomeranging back on them. In a lawless, democracy-free, corrupt and totally brainwashed Empire, THERE IS NO WAY to replace elected or appointed government officials or the larger MICIMATT that controls the country with sensible, honest, peace-oriented leaders. A very large majority of American voters, albeit out of total ignorance, the banality of evil obliviousness or party loyalty only effectively support US dominance now which has led to politicians of both parties trying to outdo each other as to who is the most hawkish. The entire electoral system is a joke, given that there is nothing to hold any politician to his or her campaign promises. So it's not restricted to certain psychopathic leaders. It's not possible to elect anyone calling for peace! Don't forget that I've been there, done that (having tried to run for congress in 2006). Political campaigns become immediately corrupted due to the Big Money needed to reach voters, the only source of which are special corporate interests like the MIC and Big Pharma. Even the one in a million like a Tulsi Gabbard who did explicitly call for peace (in contrast to almost all the rest who simply hedge or lie), cannot be held to any pre-election promise no more than anyone could hold Zelensky to his pre-election promises to restore the Minsk Agreements and seek peace. So calling for a change in leadership just begs the question unless there's a way to do that without additional campaign finance reform and/or expansion of electoral issue referendums. If the progressive CFAR track record during recent elections is any guide, even calling on candidates to sign "iron-clad" contracts has not worked. Was Ro Khanna the only CFAR candidate to get elected?! And even he has since quickly turned Warhawk. There are many obstacles to getting VIABLE political candidates to sign a "contract" or even a solemn pledge although many lobbies and other special interests do make such attempts. But given that money is power resulting in the corruption of almost all important Media as well as the politicians, these are kind of "Hail Mary" attempts. Heck, most incumbents (or other viable candidates) won't even publicly debate. The hardest part, if not Mission Impossible would be enforcing the breaking of an actual signed and sealed CFAR contract. It's definitely worth giving more thought to overcoming these obstacles even though there presently do not seem to be any easy solutions.

Of course, I can't answer for others in the ever-dwindling "peace movement" here in the U.S.--diminished even further due to the persistent division (with a couple of Quincy Institute-type exceptions) between antiwar conservative libertarians on the right and antiwar "progressives" on the Left. These few stalwarts do continue to write and speak out as best as they can to ever smaller audiences, to demonstrate in ever smaller numbers, and in ever less successful efforts to reach fellow Americans, in ongoing feeble efforts to counter the enormous power of Warhawk propaganda coming from the U.S. MICIMATT complex.

But if you're merely asking what will we do, it's a no-brainer to expect the same efforts to continue. Even if it's difficult to muster much enthusiasm for continuing to make such feeble efforts, lacking all realistic expectation of any bit of success reaching people here in the U.S. due to the effectiveness of the recipe the hugely powerful MICIMATT has concocted for perpetual war in its pursuit of world domination. In my opinion, the deadly "banality of evil" obliviousness here is a combination of Big Media propaganda-induced dehumanization-based war fever and the well-accepted notion that only foreign people suffer the costs, that the U.S. is too powerful, too exceptional, and too virtuous to ever suffer any actual adverse consequences of its wars and fools' errand quest for world domination. In contrast to Europeans who are increasingly beginning to suffer real costs, most Americans seem to think it will always be possible to stay a step ahead of war blowback. Most will simply remain in complete denial and simply be devoid of any ability to care, as I repeatedly attempt to explain when there are no visible costs TO THEMSELVES. Obviously, the overriding majority of Americans don't want a military draft forcing them to kill or be killed; they don't want higher taxes and they naturally don't want more American casualties. Talk of nuclear war is far more acceptable than any such real sacrifice. But mostly Americans believe they are exceptional, that war will never directly impact them as it hasn't happened on US soil for over 150 years. So try as we might, I'm afraid that people in this American empire just don't want to hear or know that war costs are already coming home to roost.

The related question: what should we do is a lot harder to answer. I constantly receive ideas from peace activists on various lists and some seem good but most are recycled ideas from what worked during the Vietnam War era (when Americans DID increasingly suffer costs to themselves so became less vulnerable to propaganda manipulation and consequently started to care). Given the level of MICIMATT propaganda that has so effectively blinded and manipulated people in the U.S. by pressing their emotional buttons, their vulnerability to fear, hate, greed, false pride, and blind loyalty, I don’t think a silver bullet answer actually exists. I admit to being pessimistic as to what we effectively can do to stop or even curtail-NATO military aggression, living in this end-of-empire moment when the democratic process becomes weaker and weaker, elections are between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum hawks of both war parties, when U.S. leaders have become more and more desperate to hold onto power and thus more reckless, an Orwellian situation where most average citizens have also been so effectively brainwashed as to believe that war is peace, that their perpetual wars are humanitarian and virtuous because bombing a village is how to save it (for our "rules-based order"). No action presently being implemented or which I’ve seen suggested these last years, therefore, appears to have any significant chance of turning this militarily aggressive, pro-imperialist mindset around given the decades-long, solidly entrenched MICIMATT control of the U.S. which has now come to include prosecution of whistleblowers and publishers exposing war crimes and nearly full censorship of any effective anti-war voices in violation of the First Amendment.

It seems more likely to me that irrelevant of any of our actions, the Empire is on a trajectory to crash of its own accord, either taking the rest of the world with it via global nuclear annihilation or by a somewhat softer landing, yet one that still entails enormous destabilization and misery for the U.S. and its “allies” (vassals) as well as most of the rest of the world. Barring a minor miracle, avoiding nuclear omnicide is probably the best we can realistically hope for.
• • •

---