If this Bill (see below) passes, as it will in some form as part of the NDAA, Republicans and libertarians here will denounce it as Biden’s “war spending,” omitting who it was passed by, as a perfect example of the ideological consolidation of the U.S. Militarist Ideology, or National Security Ideology, first put into more doctrinaire form by the CIA or former CIA officers who brought into existence National Review magazine, and thereby, the “Conservative Movement,” which I continue to research by reading the “founders” of that Movement.
And reading what was written in other materials on the CIA like the attached file as a chapter from William Blum’s book on the CIA:
Going with reference to Tom Braden by Blum is this, which I share for the sole purpose of reference to Burnham, one of two CIA mentors that Bill Buckley had. With this as a brief introduction of how the CIA initially invaded the collective consciousness of the American Mind, and called it Conservatism:
"Who Paid The Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War*by Frances Saundersis the fullest account yet of the CIA's penetration, funding and manipulation of this liberal and social- democratic left during the Cold War. The basic story is well known. The CIA realized that psychological or political warfare was as important as military capability in the Cold War. C.D. Jackson, special advisor to President Eisenhower, played a pivotal role in forcing this understanding on the U.S. political class. Secretary of State Edward Barrett said: "a highly skillful and substantial campaign of truth is as indispensable as an air force.” (It in fact was not about “truth”) Truman, urged on by George Kennan, had already set up the Psychological Strategy Board on April 4,1952. The PSB operating statement PSB D-33/2 remains classified though it is known to have called for lavishly funded worldwide "political warfare" on Russia. The psychological warfare budget, $34 million in 1950, was quadrupled. Saunders speculates that James Burnham was the author of PSB D-33/2, pointing to its resemblance to Burnham's bookThe Machiavellians. One might also mention, more plausibly, Burnham's 1947The Struggle for the World. The CIA aimed to fund an intellectual and cultural war in order to create, in Saunders phrase, "a beachhead in western Europe from which the advance of Communist ideas could be halted.”
James Burnham was one of Buckley’s mentors. With the other one his professor at Yale who was a major inspiration or teacher for Buckley’s defense of Joe McCarthy, and chief CIA propagandist for Latin America. Doing there, what Burnham was doing in Europe. Amongst other things, establishing magazines as “Influence Operations,” like National Review would be. Which was not restricted to overseas operations, as Blum shows elsewhere in his book. And as well, the Latin American CIA “expert” would maintain a lifelong animus toward the US Bill of Rights, particularly the 1st Amendment.” As one would expect from too many CIA officers, and was the original, post-WW II source for the “military necessity” doctrine in effect today, as fully resuscitated from the original advocacy by this Conservative Movement political theorist, now celebrated as a source of Trumpism. But the phrase “Total Information Awareness” and “Espionage Act violation,” as violations of the current Constitution (but for how long?) should come to one’s mind every time one thinks of the founders of the so-called Conservative Movement, or more accurately, the “CIA Ideological Movement,” as founders of Conservatism to include “History and Tradition” to go along with the sense of “Patria” they were embedding in the American consciousness, as borrowed from Bozell’s, Buckley’s, and Kendall’s favored regimes at the time, Spain and the Dominican Republic, under their Dictators.
So the point here is that not only do we have a Military Industrial Complex, or more extensively: MICIMATT as Ray McGovern accurately calls it. But it has its own ideology, founded formally as the Conservative Movement’s “Hobbesianism,” and the “military necessity” of a Global Leviathan, a la, Hobbes, if one has read their "political theory,” and its sources. But that ideology is almost as extensive now in the Democrats as it is in the Republicans (not a mean feat!), having come with the Conservative inspired “Scoop Jackson Democrats, now the majority faction of the Democrats, as exemplified by Hilary Clinton in its most extreme form. Not quite matching the Straussian Trump wing of the Republicans, however, champing at the bit to finish off Iran and China. With a strategy like “island-hopping” was in WW II Pacific for Russia, once Trump had them encircled and continued the Ukrainian buildup within Ukraine and from Camp Trump, with Trump’s obvious plan to come back for Russia later, until that was upset by Russia reading the writing on the wall with its own preemptive attack.
But this additional military spending for war against Russia will be laid at the feet of Biden (Biden’s war budget), by my Republican, Conservative, and libertarian friends here, as they usually do, and as Americans so stupidly do of either party, rather than what Hannah Arendt always called for, for people to “think.” In fact, so as to avoid “thinking,” while flattering themselves that they are, even while repeating by rote what they merely hear by their favored political outlet/party.
In this case, there is a 8 - 7 split, if King is counted for the Democrats,for increased arming of Ukraine for the “final, inevitable victory;” given the mass weaponry we’re providing for our “Warfighters,” the Ukrainians. Including or especially their fascist elements, with weaponry being siphoned off and going where? So here’s the roll call:
So how long before we hear how “Biden” is arming Ukraine, and imbeciles like the folks who appeared on TAC’s/Quincy Institute event of a month or so ago natter on about how the “Republicans stand for “Peace,” even while boasting how Trump presided over the Greatest Military Expansionism in US History!
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of 15 senators has unveiled legislation aimed at expediting the Defense Department’s ability to backfill U.S. weapons stockpiles sent to Ukraine through non-competitive contracts.
Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., introduced the Securing American ARMS Act as stand-alone legislation alongside 13 other senators last week.
The bill would allow the Defense Department to award non-competitive contracts to arms manufacturers in order to backfill U.S. weapons stockpile sent to friendly countries such as Ukraine. The authority can only be used for items similar to the weapons sent from U.S. stocks, and the Pentagon must notify Congress within one week of issuing a non-competitive contract under that provision.
“We’re already hearing the Ukrainians ask for more equipment based on their positive progress, and so we could have it on a more regular basis without other bureaucratic hurdles,” Shaheen told Defense News.
Shaheen, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, told Defense News on Tuesday that they hope to see the bill become law when Congress passes the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act later this year but cautioned that that her bill’s inclusion is not yet certain.
“It’s not clear when we’re going to take up the NDAA, whether it will be before or after the election, and also to what extent we’ll have an amendment process,” Shaheen told Defense News.
Cornyn and Shaheen have secured support for their bill from numerous colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, including Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who is in line to become the top Republican on that key panel next year. Senate Majority whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has also co-sponsored the bill.
“When providing aid to allies under attack, we must ensure we can quickly replenish our own stockpiles in the process,” Cornyn said upon introducing the Securing American ARMS Act last week. “This legislation would authorize faster procurement of weapons and combat articles so helping our allies and partners doesn’t diminish our ability to protect ourselves.”
Biden has used the drawdown policy 20 times since last August to provide approximately $12.5 billion in U.S. military equipment to Ukraine. Under current law, the Defense Department must then open a competitive contract process to replace the weapons – even those that are exclusively designed by a specific company or consortium of companies.
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Bill LaPlante said in a press briefing last week that $1.2 billion in contracts are currently underway to refill equipment. That amount includes $624 million to backfill Stinger anti-ship missiles, $352 million for Javelin anti-tank missiles and another $33 million to replace High Mobile Artillery Rocket Systems.
The United States in recent years has transferred 1,400 Stingers to Ukraine as well as 5,000 Javelins, That amounts to one-quarter and one-third of the stockpiles for each munition, respectively.
Once the Senate passes its version of the NDAA, both chambers will have to agree on final legislation in a conference committee. This will also provide Cornyn and Shaheen with one final opportunity to insert their provision to backfill U.S. stockpiles with non-competitive contracts if they are unable to attach it as an amendment to the NDAA on the Senate floor.
Bryant Harris is the Congress reporter for Defense News. He has covered U.S. foreign policy, national security, international affairs and politics in Washington since 2014. He has also written for Foreign Policy, Al-Monitor, Al Jazeera English and IPS News.