War is profitable for defense contractors and tin-horn dictators

By John Lawrence / Will Blog for Food / June 23, 2011

War is immensely profitable; that’s why there is so much of it. It’s the only domestic industry to speak of. All the rest have been outsourced.

War constitutes almost the entire GDP of Afghanistan while enriching the corrupt Karzai and his henchmen. War is immensely profitable to Pakistan too – $2 billion a year profitable.

Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing and other defense contractors would see their profits sag if it weren’t for their lucrative contracts from the Defense Department. Although war is essentially the only domestic industry, we’re still dependent for parts for cruise missiles and smart bombs from China.

Senator Bernie Sanders had to actually introduce a piece of legislation to get the Smithsonian gift shop to stop stocking busts of Washington and Jefferson MADE IN CHINA! While the US pours billions of dollars down the rathole of war, other countries are using their resources to build up their infrastructure, provide free education to their citizens, free health care and a decent quality of life.

The US is drowning in debt precisely because it has squandered its resources on its war economy. Where other countries have built bridges, the US has destroyed bridges. The destructive power of the US is second to none while its politicians squabble over whether or not to provide a few crumbs for the poor.

And as for the countries we have expended so much blood and treasure on, they essentially say to us: “don’t bang your ass on the door on the way out.” Are they grateful? No. Are they glad we came? No. They use us for the money that we bring with the wars we fight. Our “puppet” leaders such as Karzai want the long green so they go along with our ridiculous assertions of bringing them freedom and democracy, and then they ridicule us when the gravy train runs out. Today President Obama gave a very rational explanation of his troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. It was very precise and rational, almost mathematically tautological.

We will bring out so many now, so many next year, so many the year after that etc. And as our troops stand down, their troops will stand up? Where have I heard that before? At least we can’t be accused of cutting and running. However, President Obama said nothing about withdrawing the money from Afghanistan. That’s what I want to hear. Like, for instance, we withdraw $200 million per week (of the $2 billion per week we’re spending now) followed by another $500 million per week next year etc.

Withdrawing troops is almost irrelevant if we are continuing to spend the same amount of money there. The American people want the money withdrawn as well as the troops with the money being spent at home instead of over there. But there was nary a word about who’s going to pay all those Afghani soldiers who are standing up as ours stand down (hint: it’s us) or who’s going to keep on paying all those expensive private contractors about whose prescence there’s not even a mention. And when the money gravy train dries up, all those Afghani soldiers just might switch sides if the other side offers to pay them.

Or maybe they might do it anyway just for the hell of it. If anyone thinks they are loyal to the corrupt Karzai, they have another think coming. And just as soon as American money dries up, Karzai himself will be off to his Swiss villa and his Swiss bank accounbt: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! As the US leaves Afghanistan they will probably be treated to the same refrain: don’t bang your ass on the door on the way out!

For the remainder of this article, please go here.