The clusterf*ck in the US House of Representatives this past
weekend is surely the final straw. The dreadful grip of the UniParty on
national security policy has finally produced sheer madness in a single
package. To wit:
- $95 billion of foreign aid boondoggles that do not benefit America’s homeland security in the slightest.
- An extension of section 702 of FISA that wantonly expands an already egregious affront to the Fourth Amendment.
- The illegal transfer of billions of sovereign assets stolen from Russia to its enemies in Kiev.
- A national security ban on 15-second TikTok videos about dances,
pranks, pets and poppycock viewed overwhelmingly by under 30-year-old
Americans whose viewing habits are of zero value to the Chicoms in
Beijing.
It is bad enough that there is not an iota of informed consideration
behind any of this. But what is really alarming is that every single
House Democrat (210) voted in favor of $61 billion for the Ukrainian
Demolition Derby. This included a 97-0 vote among so-called Dem
“progressives”, who also voted 96-o in favor of aid to Taiwan – the
purpose of which is surely not a more pacific neighborhood on the
Pacific Rim.
Once upon a time, the Democrats were the party of the peace
candidates. No more, which surely explains their fury at RFK, who is.
At the same time, only fourteen Republicans voted against all four
components of this wholesale assault on constitutional liberty and
fiscal rectitude. As we have previously documented, America is now
careening on fiscal automatic pilot toward a $140 trillion public debt
by mid-century, but the overwhelming share of House Republicans choose
to hammer the US economy with even more debt to fund pointless foreign
aid boondoggles, while shackling private citizens and entrepreneurs with
government intrusions based on the paranoid lies of the national
security state.
In this context it was the predictable histrionics of the bevy of neocon warmongers on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal
that brought home the full extent of the challenge. Namely, that the
mainstream narrative in the Imperial City and among the nation’s elite
media is so utterly wrong-headed and morally obtuse that only the
complete abandonment of the core framework of contemporary national
security policy can save the day.
Accordingly, the “domino” theory needs be repudiated once and for
all. Likewise, the Washington-Jefferson doctrine of “no entangling
alliances” needs be revived in place of the vestigial cold war notion
that informs Washington’s current destructive and bankrupting policies.
We are referring to the wholly obsolete notion that America’s homeland
security depends upon a worldwide system of military alliances, bases
and kinetic power projection capabilities that enable Washington to
function as the great Global Hegemon, who is ready, willing and able to
intervene in virtually any spate that erupts among the 8 billion peoples
of the planet.
The fourteen GOP stalwarts listed below essentially said, no dice to
these tired, dangerous, costly and risible formulations: Neither Russia
nor China pose even a remote military threat to the American homeland,
while proxy wars and economic sanctions against “adversaries” demonized
by the Deep State actually undermine domestic liberty and prosperity for
no justifiable reason of homeland security at all.
With respect to the latter, for instance, there is no real reason for
the sweeping multi-hundred billion cost to the American economy of
sanctions and trade restrictions on China, Iran or Russia. And,
similarly, there are no security threats in the world today that even
remotely justify the national security state’s intrusion into the rights
and privacies of American citizens.
Still, the pseudo-intellectuals at the WSJ trotted out
Hitler, Tojo and the “isolationist” epithet as if these references prove
anything at all, when, in fact, none have any real relevance to the
world of today. There are simply no industrial state tyrants on the
march anywhere on the global horizon that resemble even the apparent
facts of the 1930s, let alone the actual historical realities of the
matter.
The fact is, Stalin and Hitler were sui generis. They were one-time
accidents of history arising from the folly of Versailles and the
punitive peace of the victors enabled by Woodrow Wilson’s pointless
intervention in a European war that would have otherwise ended in
stalemate and the mutual exhaustion and bankruptcy of all the
combatants.
That is to say, the DNA of the world’s nations is not infected with
incipient tendencies toward totalitarianism and aggression. Maintaining
the global peace and pacific commerce of the nations does not depend
upon an alliance of virtuous interventionists or a Global Hegemon,
prepared to enforce its writ at the slightest breakout of local and
regional quarrels and conflicts.
At the end of the day, laissez faire is the path to prosperity in
both economics and international affairs. Military alliances and
Hegemons everywhere and always fall captive to the arms merchants they
foster.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the honor roll from last
weekend’s rampage of folly by the UniParty consists of a mere 14 House
Republicans, who were awarded the scarlet “I” by the war-happy
globalists at the Wall Street Journal:
Fourteen Republicans voted against all four bills on the House
floor, including the one that would force a sale of TikTok from Chinese
ownership. Here’s the dishonor roll in alphabetical order: Andy
Biggs (Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Elijah
Crane (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.), Paul
Gosar (Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Andy Harris (Md.), Thomas
Massie (Ky.), Troy Nehls (Texas), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matt
Rosendale (Mont.), Chip Roy (Texas).
The
unavoidable meaning of the votes is that these Members don’t believe the
U.S. should support allies threatened by authoritarians on the march.
Like Republicans in the 1930s who slept while Hitler and Tojo advanced,
these Republicans apparently think America can sit out these fights in
splendid isolation. But history suggests that if they prevail, American
sons and daughters would eventually have to fight. Better to help allies
who want to help themselves.
The isolationist caucus
lost this round, but this GOP tendency is dangerous. Another 17 Members
voted for arms for Israel but not for Taiwan and Ukraine. Do
they want to encourage a Chinese invasion? Perhaps if Florida is
attacked, they’ll awaken to the reality of the world’s growing dangers.
No, Florida is not about to be attacked by Putin, Xi or the
Ayatollahs. This is just scary bedtime story stuff that no informed
adult should accord any credibility whatsoever.
Needless to say, the GOP most rabid neocon and warmonger, Senator
Lindsay Graham, is neither informed nor, apparently, even of adult mind.
His incoherent, bloodthirsty rant actually made the WSJ editorialists sound thoughtful by comparison.
“Here’s what I will tell you. If you give Putin Ukraine, he will
not stop,” Graham said during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “This
is not about containing NATO and if you give him Ukraine, there goes Taiwan because China’s watching to see what we do.”
“I want to know what they’re talking about over there before they kill us here.
And if you shut this thing down, you’ve turned the war into a crime,”
Graham said. “We’re not fighting our crime, we’re finding a bunch of
people who would kill all of us if they could get here. So, when you
intercept information from a foreigner overseas talking about America, I
want to know what they’re talking about.”
The Ukranian
military, with our help, has killed about 50 percent of the combat power
of the Russians,” Graham said Sunday. “This is the year [of] more.
They’re going to have more weapons, but we also want them to have new
weapons.”
Nor was the House GOP
to be outdone by Senator Graham’s bellicose fulminations. Recently
resigned Rep. Ken Buck let it be known that if you actually understand
that America’s homeland security is in no way enhanced by Washington’s
misguided proxy war on Russia, as does Rep. Marjorie Greene, why then
you surely are a traitor in the pay of Vlad Putin himself:
“Well, Moscow Marjorie
has reached a new low,” Buck said of his former colleague. “She is just
mouthing the Russian propaganda and really hurting American foreign
policy in the process. She’s acting completely irresponsibly. And again,
when history looks at this period of time, Russia invaded Ukraine,
Ukraine is fighting for its freedom, and we should be with the freedom
fighters in this war.”
Of course, the
insanity of $200 billion of NATO funds already wasted; hundreds of
thousands dead; millions fleeing the country to avoid the mayhem of war
and the cruelty of being drafted as cannon fodder to serve the perverted
pleasure of Washington’s armchair warriors; and the civilian
infrastructure of one of Europe’s largest countries in shambles – all
have nothing whatsoever to do with “freedom fighters”.
The undeniable fact is
that there is nothing at stake worth fighting for in Ukraine that even
remotely resembles democratic virtue. It has been a cesspool of
egregious corruption virtually since the fall of the Iron Curtain in
1991, and recently even required a visit from the head of the CIA to
tell Zelensky and his fellow thieves to “knock it off” on the corruption
front.
To the contrary, as
the venerable anti-war writer William Astore put it, the real purpose of
Ukrainian installment of the Forever Wars is the enrichment of the
merchants of death who have captured the levers of power in Washington:
Of course, this is yet another triumph for the MICIMATT: the military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academe-think-tank
complex. Its power and greed are almost irresistible. Add that to
AIPAC, threat inflation, and fear-mongering and perhaps it is
irresistible until the U.S. empire final collapses under the weight of
its own folly.
Yet all of the
mindless bellicosity of the Washington interventionists is not simply
ludicrous nonsense from an empirical viewpoint. More importantly, the
current neocon/interventionist Washington consensus blatantly repudiates
the sage advice of both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from
more than 220 years ago. Together they articulated a theory of foreign
policy that was not “isolationist” at all, but realist and
evidence-based.
That is, these wise
Founders held that foreign policy should be based on the facts and
circumstances of national interest at any given point in time, and that
when the facts change and alliances become obsolete, they should be
jettisoned.
From George Washington’s Farewell Address:
“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in
extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little
political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests,
which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be
engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially
foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to
implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of
her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her
friendships or enmities… it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”
As further amplified by Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address,
this realist doctrine viewed external military alliances to be
arrangements of convenience and should be freely abandoned or reversed
as indicated by changing needs of the national interest. Citing
Washington’s Farewell Address as his inspiration, Jefferson described
the doctrine as:
“peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.”
That famous phrase is precisely the policy cornerstone that fits today’s realities.
America’s homeland security doesn’t require militarized alliances or
the wherewithal to maraud militarily around the globe because there are
no military-industrial-technological powers that can threaten its
security.
Accordingly, institutions like NATO may well have served the national
interest 70 years ago with respect to Stalinist Russia and its military
capacities and intentions toward its erstwhile but estranged wartime
allies in the West. But even there the open archives from both sides of
the cold war cast considerable doubt on whether Stalin and world
communism were actually on the march or had either the intention or
military capability to enslave western Europe, to say nothing of the
American homeland on the far side of the Atlantic and Pacific Moats.
As it happened, the Henry Wallace peaceful accommodationist wing of
the Roosevelt coalition may have been closer to the truth than the Wall
Street based coteries of Henry Stimson, James Forrestal, Dean Acheson
and the abominable Dulles Bothers, who actually formulated the nation’s
cold war policies during that era.
But that question was resolved once and for all in 1991 when the
Soviet Union disappeared into the dustbin of history, and not because of
NATO or even Reagan’s Star Wars threat. The real reason was that
centralized state communism doesn’t work: Neither for the people it
exploits and oppresses, nor for the ruling elites and state-empowered
comrades who may have delusions of grandeur about the sustainability of
their own rule, to saying nothing of extending it to peoples beyond
their borders.
Yet even as the true lesson of Soviet Communism’s collapse marched
across the pages of history after 1991, the entrenched
military-industrial-foreign policy apparatus was not about to relinquish
its power, budgets and perks, just as Eisenhower had warned in another
of America’s great Farewell Addresses in 1961. In fact, NATO morphed
into something far more obnoxious than a cancellable alliance that had
accomplished its mission and was slated for early retirement under the
Washington-Jefferson doctrine.
And well it should have been because after 1991, there was no there,
there. The Russian rump of the Soviet Union even today has a GDP of
merely $2.2 trillion compared to the $28 trillion GDP of the USA and $46
trillion for all 32 NATO countries combined. And Russia has a military
budget of barely 6% of NATO’s $1.25 trillion of combined defense
expenditures and but one aircraft carrier.
Furthermore, the latter is a 20th century relic that has been in
dry-dock repair since 2017 and is outfitted with neither an armada of
escort ships and warplanes or even a crew. The Russian military,
therefore, has no way to land on the shores of New Jersey or even enter
the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, for that matter. Nor is Putin stupid
enough to invade Poland, which offers nothing but centuries of animosity
to all things Russian.
Then again, if Poland really believed all the anti-Putin rhetoric
spouted by its rightwing government, it would be spending a lot more on
defense in 2024 than $30 billion and 3.1% of GDP; nor would it be
offering to house NATO nuclear weapons next door to the Russian Bear, as
its president did this week.
“If our allies decide to deploy nuclear arms on our territory as
part of nuclear sharing, to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank, we are ready
to do so,” Polish President Andrzej Duda said in an interview published today by the Fakt newspaper.
In truth, Duda’s offer is just another case of client state politics
run amuck. Rid the scene of Washington’s entangling alliance with the
relic of NATO, and the voters of Poland would be looking for a new
government. And they would do so even as they were sending it leaders to
Moscow to seek mutual accommodation from the natural trade and
commercial relationships that are inherent in its geography.
The fact is, 33-years after the demise of the Soviet Union NATO is
not simply a pointless obsolete relic. It has morphed into the greatest
armaments marketing and sales organization in the history of mankind.
The only benefit that came from betraying Bush the Elder’s promise to
Gorbachev that NATO would not expand a “single inch” to the east has
accrued to the defense contractors, especially the US based giants.
As RFK has cogently pointed out, when the NATO alliance mushroomed
from 16 nations to now 32 countries, every one of the new members had to
conform their weapons systems and munitions to NATO standards. Not
surprisingly, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, General
Dynamics and United Technologies prospered mightily–even as they
effectively roamed the halls of Congress spreading the lies embedded in
the above Wall Street Journal rendition of dominoes and the essentiality of Washington’s obsolete global alliances.
Yet two of the four components of Saturday’s abomination were
directed against China, predicated on the same illusion that led to the
vast threat-inflation with respect to the Soviet Union. To wit, Chinese
Communism, even in the thinly veiled guise of “red capitalism”, is no
more viable or sustainable than the Soviet version.
At the end of the day, if you don’t have free markets,
constitutionally protected property and personal rights of _expression_
and assembly and honest bankruptcy courts to dispose of failed economic
bets, you do not have a sustainable economy or permanently rising
prosperity. Period.
To the contrary, China is a vast house of economic cards and statist
malignancies propped up by $50 trillion of unpayable debt incurred in
barely two decades.
Accordingly, it is utterly dependent upon the hard currency earnings
from $3.5 trillion of annual exports, mainly to the West, to keep its
vast excess of infrastructure and housing investment from capsizing the
whole Rube Goldberg Contraption. In the event of war, this export
lifeline would soon find its way to Davy Jones’ Locker, along with
China’s entire jerry-built economy.
So, it’s not going to be invading anyone, probably not even Taiwan.
Chairman Xi and his team of rulers may love to quote Mao and color
themselves red ideologically, but they also know that what stands
between them and an uprising of China’s oppressed 1.5 billion
inhabitants is a consistent and reasonably rising level of internal
prosperity.
That rules out a Chinese Armada of black ships heading for the coast
of California. Indeed, even the Navy they have today consists of two
repurposed Soviet Era aircraft carriers and one new build of far less
formidable and lethal capacity than Washington current Gerald Ford class
carriers. And its other 400 Navy vessels consists largely of coastal
patrol vessels that likely would not make it to the shores of California
in one piece.
In terms of lethal firepower, in fact, the US Navy has 4.6 million
tons of displacement, averaging 15,000 tons per ship. By contrast,
China’s Navy has but 2.0 million tons of displacement, averaging only
5,000 tons per boat. That is to say, the Chinese Navy is totally
visible, assessable and trackable, and is not remotely of the size and
lethality that would make an invasion of America remotely plausible.
Finally, the main military capacity that is needed for homeland
security in the present world, of course, is America’s triad strategic
deterrent including 3,800 nuclear warheads. At any moment in time these
are scrambled and dispersed:
- along the ocean bottoms among 16 Ohio class subs each bearing 80 independently targetable warheads.
- aloft in the global airspace on a fleet of 66 B-2 and B-52 heavy bombers
- buried deep in hardened underground silos bearing more than 1,000 ICBM warheads.
This awesome retaliatory force cannot possibly be detected or 100% neutralized by a would-be nuclear blackmailer.
As it happens, the triad deterrent costs about $65 billion per year
according to a recent CBO analysis, and full protection of the US
shorelines and airspace behind the great ocean moats could bring a total
Fortress America model of homeland defense to $400 billion per annum,
at most.
The other $500 billion in today’s 050 function represents the
ill-gotten budgetary conquests of the military-industrial-intelligence
complex, and all the think tanks, NGOs and beltway bandits who make a
living getting paid by DOD, State, AID, NED etc. to manufacturing
inflated threats and scary stories about sinister foreigners.
Such malefic malarkey was on full display in the US House last
weekend. Accordingly, there is only one cure. A powerful force from
outside the beltway needs to splinter the UniParty into a thousand
pieces.
David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was
also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President
Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year
career on Wall Street. He’s the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back, and the recently released Great Money Bubble: Protect Yourself From The Coming Inflation Storm. He also is founder of David Stockman’s Contra Corner and David Stockman’s Bubble Finance Trader.