Ask George Smith e-mail: webmaster at dick destiny
Another Asterpix content link cloud spun off a mirrored Bombing Moe article at Globalsecurity.
Almost as good as this bit of Microsoft Paint jokery, surprisingly stuck into searches for images of Jonathan Alter on Google.
On the other hand, if — at this point, you don’t see another war as an unfunny sick national joke that just gets told over and over — you need to visit a psychiatrist, for many other problems as well.
Permalink Comments off
By way of Pine View Farm:
The classic arguments by the celebrity pundits and serious people arranged like gilt furniture in Washington never mix in what’s going to continue to happen to the the middle class because of more big war adventure.
Instead, one gets example like this — from Adam Serwer –– at the Washington Post:
There are several reasons why the U.S. shouldn’t be seen as taking the lead. For one thing, the U.S. is already occupied with the aftermath of one war in Iraq and attempting to bring a more than decade-long operation in Afghanistan to its conclusion. The U.S. does not have unlimited military resources, and other countries that demanded intervention should take responsibility and offer contributions rather than free-riding off of the United States.
The same idea was taken up by Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC at lunchtime yesterday, including the additional suggestion that others in the “Coalition” ought to eventually issue a check for all the munitions the US military was expending to flatten Moe’s defense.
Everyone who talks like this knows it’s just an exercise in taking up space.
First, it’s immaterial whether or not that America’s military resources are not unlimited. For the sake of what’s gone down in the last decade, they are treated that way. And for practical purposes, the cash sack for war is unlimited.
There’s no political will to change it and the populace, whether or not it supports endless war, has lost all democratic control over it. Serwer contributes stock bathwater, stuff anyone pickled in Beltway culture and dependent upon it to keep the paycheck coming, could write.
Because it’s passed off as wisdom it’s even kind of more contemptible than material, like this, written by Ted Nugent at the WaTimes:
“Africa is an international scab” and “Kill all those people [by flattening the area where Ghadafi lives in Tripoli] and get it over with.”
Nugent, at least, has never been taken as much of a voice for reasonable wisdom. Everyone knows he’s the guy who makes his bread touring rib shacks in the summer, cutting his leg in a chainsaw accident for reality television, and getting his hunting license revoked in California for unsportsmanlike behavior. Nugent, unlike Serwer and the other serious people writing on the war, can’t be passed off as a source of reasonable argument. And there’s more honesty in that, although not by much.
In the Economic Treason series I’ve written of a thought experiment, one that imposed a tax on arms sales made by US companies, that money to be returned to the American people — food stamp recipients — as a dividend check.
For that story, here, the theoretical war tax dividend returned a check for $1,140.88 for everyone on food stamps.
In fifteen minutes over the weekend, the US military burned up well over $100 million in Tomahawks (around $155 million was the high-ball figure), all of which will be replenished by Raytheon, a US arms manufacturer.
We can posit at least a figure of, perhaps, $150 million a week for Odyssey Dawn, which extrapolates to 0.6 billion a month. Of course, it could be more because cost is never an object in the bottomless cash sack for war.
There are a couple variables. If the rebels continue to try and advance on Tripoli and the ‘Coalition’ is forced to provide effective close air support to prevent them from being slaughtered by Moe’s army, the costs go up. If Odyssey Dawn turns into just exercises in observational missions over geography with no air defense and occasional radar and flak suppression, it goes way down.
Add to this 159.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Continuing in the thought exercise, assume Odyssey Dawn continues until the end of the year, for an outlay of 8-9 months equaling at least
$5.4 billion. This seems absurdly low for American war.
In any case, added to Iraq and Afghanistan, it comes to $164.7 billion.
The original war dividend tax was 20 percent.
Clawing back twenty percent, as an example, from any check cut by the US government to Raytheon for replenishment of Tomahawk missiles seems quite reasonable. And this is because war has caused a
continuous boom in arms-manufacturing in this country, growth and financial success not enjoyed by anyone else. (Except Wall St.)
It’s aptly illustrated here by the much used by me illustration from the New York Times:
The war boom: Rewards and monumental profit for arms-manufacturing. The bottom of the barrel for everyone else.
Again, it’s not unreasonable to make the argument that the stressed in the middle class ought to receive something back for the country’s primary business product/export, one its taxes bankroll and grow. A 20 percent war dividend for 2011 might look like this:
20 percent of 247 billion in arms sales = $49 400 000 000
20 percent of 164.7 billion for direct war = $32 940 000 000
Total war dividend clawback = $82 340 000 000
Bonus check cut for 49.3 million people on food stamps, adjustable for increases = $1670.18.
That’s up $529.30 from the last exercise.
Such checks are not insubstantial to people who have just lost their jobs.
And it is clear from the war dividend thought exercise that the tax alone covers the so-called budget cuts in the posted video, cuts which will cost even more jobs. While the arms manufacturing plants get more orders.
The exercise is about bringing fairness to any argument about bombing Moe. And because it’s not considered as anything but delusional outside the halls where very serious upper class people ruling the country reside, it can only be an exercise. Never happen. Instead, it’s time to go ahead with giving everyone not involved in the machine of war hardship or the chop. Because the middle class has absolutely no say in the matter. In the biggest ‘democracy’ in the world.
“And of course, the cost of ‘overseas contingency operations’ will continue to rise, stressing both men (and women) and machines to the breaking point,” writes J. at Armchair Generalist. “The good news being, of course, that this means the US government can’t possibly afford to cut defense funds now.”
J. points out the savings inherent in losing an old $30 million F-15 over Libya as opposed to the $120 million F-22.
Updated mirror at Globalsecurity.
Permalink Comments off
Ted Nugent, kinda late to the game, in the WaTimes:
If the real goal of the United Nations is to topple the Libyan leader, kill him and all his henchmen. Flatten the area of Tripoli where it is believed he is holed up with a human shield surrounding him. Kill all those people and get it over with. Implement total war for a week, and cockroach Gadhafi will be entombed in a pile of rubble.
“Africa in an international scab,” he adds.
Figure of the day, token British missile strikes:
130 US Tomahawk launches
6 UK Tomahawk launches
136 cruise missile launchesBrit explosive contribution to ‘the Coalition,’ 4.4 percent by weight.
One might chalk it up to reluctance after Iraqi Freedom but there’s this:
British Prime Minister David Cameron told the nation’s parliament Monday that the coalition has “neutralized” Libyan air defenses and made “good progress” in achieving its mission to protect civilians. He also said coalition operations had averted what he called “bloody massacre” of Benghazi residents by Gadhafi loyalists.
Plus, the Brits might just not have the right stuff for the heavy lifting.
And if they launch all their Tomahawks, there’s a big check for replenishment they’re going to be cutting for Raytheon, messing with the British balance of trade.
So what’s the difference between not-bombing whatsisname in Bahrain and Moe in Libya?
At least three today, actually.
One — it’s because in Bahrain, it is whatsisname. No one knows whatsisname like they know Moe. Whatsisname needs to be on television more, a lot more. But as long as we still have Moe that’s not likely to happen.
Two — there’s a US Fleet parked there.
Three — Bahrain is all about banks and financialization. The US never does anything about banksters and Wall Street proxies. (By way of Digby.)
“Twenty-five percent of Bahrain’s G.D.P. comes from banks,??? Mr. Abdulmalik said as he sat in the soft Persian Gulf sunshine. “I sympathize with many of the demands of the demonstrators. But no country would allow the takeover of its financial district. The economic future of the country was at stake. What happened this week, as sad as it is, is good.???
Remember, we never never bomb bankers even if it might be right thing to do.
The dilemma of choosing to support the most inept rebel force in the world in Libya is pretty clear.
Unless we’re prepared to do overwhelming close air support whenever they march or stumble west down the highway to Tripoli, ‘our guys’ are going to get slaughtered.
“[I’m] sure it was necessary to fly B2 bombers from the United States to bomb Libya in addition to the tactical fighters involved,” notes J. sardonically at Armchair Generalist. “No overkill here.”
And from yesterday’s comments, a reader notes on competing arms pitches in Brazil:
France/Dassault have been unsuccessful flogging those Rafale jets (couldn’t even sell them to Libya.) Maybe the free advertising will help.
Permalink Comments off
It took fifteen minutes over the weekend to demonstrate one of the most important reasons for Bombing Moe. The photos of Tomahawk missile launches and the pics of Libyan tracked artillery pieces with their turrets upside down blew everything else off the news. One can always count on one thing: The western media loves the entertainment value of watching the US military and all its great machines beating up pathetic opposition.
In obvious respects it’s a repeat performance. Not a squeak of political opposition and immediate talk on the nobility of it and the alliance — “a Coalition” — forged to carry it out. Sunday morning, we even through in the tidbit that mighty Qatar would be taking part, presumably with a a couple armed yachts or French Mirages to sail and fly around the periphery of the action for show.
There’s the usual pack of misdirection, this time from the Obama administration on how the US wouldn’t be taking the lead. The pictures from Saturday night and Sunday morning immediately put the claim in the trash. Odyssey Dawn is our property. A hundredweight of Tomahawks, B-2’s, F-15’s and F-16’s, among other things, ruined the cover.
Really, think about that one. B-2’s. Is that enough firepower reserved for Moe?
Anyway, back in 2003 I was writing a column called Weapon of the Week for the Village Voice. With only a little work, it’s easy to rewrite one, entitled “The War Wanker,” for this weekend.
And so …
“Operation Odyssey Dawn” would not be complete without the combined power of war wankers. The wanker army, consisting of retired generals, TV reporters, administration fuglemen, and national pundits, stroke and soothe the polity with … war glee.
The operation is conducted by suppressing pictures of horror — mass blood and guts — or delivering only the most fleeting images of it. Into this void it jams stock US war tale-telling, the imagery of missile launches and bombs going off.
The stock tales:
• Odyssey Dawn will establish a ‘no-fly’ zone. Yeah right, nice try. It’s the standard Pentagon method of overpowering a 98-pound weakling, including bombing his armor and transport as the opportunities present.
• U.S. forces are better equipped and trained than their adversaries.
Stupidly obvious. The U.S. faces an enemy that couldn’t be more outmatched.
The war wanker dwells lovingly on wonder weapons from the land of the brave, prattling on from sanitized news production studios. Sunday morning, some retired Navy man — now in investments — went on about the Tomahawk missile.
The Tomahawk was “neat”, he said. It could attack from any direction and hardly ever missed. Fabulous.
Another, Barry McCaffrey on MSNBC, said “We’re off to a good start.”
“The B-2 has a huge shock value,” he added.
“This has been fascinating,” contributed Jonathan Alter. “It is fascinating that Qatar has signed up … This could be really helpful in the long term.”
The best thing about the war wankers, however, are that they come cheap. Their salaries are less than the cost of machinery of destruction. However, they’re still more than what the middle class, noticeably absent, earns.
Nb: For a bit of humor, you need to click the link to Jonathan Alter. Check the picture of, I think, Sheryl Crow. Coincidence?
Another bit of accidental humor, from the GlobalSecurity mirror of this post. A pic of the “explore content” world cloud spun out by Asterpix Searchlight.
Postscript: The President poked his head in from Brazil where he was pumping the value of free trade and ‘jobs’ for Americans, meaning those ‘jobs’ that are involved in making weapons for sale to … Brazil.
“[Brazil’s military] modernization plan includes holding a bidding for the purchase of 36 modern fighter-bombers in which the French firm Dassault Aviation’s Rafale aircraft is in the running, along with the Gripen built by Sweden’s Saab and the F-18 Super Hornet manufactured by the U.S. firm Boeing,” reads a newspaper story here.
Fifteen minutes of Tomahawk cruise missile bombardment for Moe:
$500,000 – current production Unit Cost
$1,400,000 – average unit cost (TY$)Low ball: 110 x $500,000 = $55, 000, 000
High ball: 110 x $1,400,000 = $154, 000, 000
Figure bandied around most often by Scott Walker to ‘prove’ Wisconsin’s ‘broke’ and public sector workers have to give up their rights: $137, 000, 000.
The White House, recently, on domestic spending, via Krugman:
And earlier this week, the White House budget director declared: “There is an agreement that we should be reducing spending,??? suggesting that his only quarrel with Republicans is over whether we should be cutting taxes, too.
Reason Number One for Bombing Moe, given Friday:
Whatever it costs in cash for another war, budget cutting for domestic programs that benefit working Americans. That’s because bombing Moe comes out of the special overflowing cash sack for war. It’s the right set of priorities and how we win the future.
Permalink Comments off
Good news, lads! Good news! It’s the familiar face of US freedom riding to the rescue, 110 guided missiles launched at night.
2,161 people liked the above LATimes story on Facebook. However, last time Mark Zuckerberg hadn’t yet delivered the precious gift of being able to watch a flash crowd getting hard over a cruise missile launch.
To recap, various reasons for Bombing Moe.
From earlier today:
… It gives birth to new noble operation naming conventions, like perhaps, Libyan Freedom or Benghazi Shield or [
fill in the blank with two words, one geographical, one upliftingOdyssey Dawn].
Odyssey: epic poem by Homer, an intellectual or spiritual wandering or quest, a long wandering or voyage usually marked by many changes of fortune.
Two from Friday:
Weapons manufacturers will get new order for cruise missiles and JDAMs used up on Moe.
Plus bombing in a foreign country is a lot more watchable on television than the broken lives of unemployed Americans.
Permalink Comments off
From a Foreign Policy mag blog:
“This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values,” a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself. The president was referring to the broader change going on in the Middle East and the need to rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on democracy and human rights.
Five more reasons the President decided to Bomb Moe:
1. The Republicans won’t know what to say. They like bombing Muslims in a foreign country but hate the President. They like war to defend oil but hate the President.
2. Bombing Moe is another opportunity to gin up the importance and cooperation between nations in something with a name like “the Allies” or “the Coalition Forces.”
3. Bombing Moe presents another opportunity for the mainstream media to send its reporters to the battlefield, either somewhere in Benghazi or on the aircraft carrier Billy Ray Culpepper CVN [Fill in the blank or sub with Charles de Gaulle]. Or maybe on the islands of Malta or Cyprus. If they’re there they won’t be in Wisconsin or Michigan or any other state where the middle class is protesting.
4. Bombing Moe gives the cheerleaders for the last war — the old media and think tank “experts” to repeat all the same mind-numbing rubbish, statistics and weapon of the week stories on the state of the enemy and balance of forces. Like this:
What worries NATO planners, however, are Libya’s plentiful antiaircraft guns and light, short-range shoulder-launched missiles — systems which proved very effective against NATO aircraft during the Kosovo war, said a diplomat who asked not to be identified.
These include about 500 cannons of various calibers, which could prevent allied aircraft from descending lower than 15,000 feet, said the diplomat who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media. In Kosovo, a majority of bombing missions had to be carried out from higher altitudes beyond the reach of the Serbian guns.
Other problems may come from Khadafy’s several dozen Mil Mi-17 helicopters and Mi-24 gunships. As experiences in Bosnia have shown it’s very difficult for fast and high flying jets to intercept ground-hugging helicopters.
Analysts have cautioned, however, that it is difficult to give an exact assessment of the African nation’s military abilities, particularly after the defections that saw some troops taking not just aircraft but also weapons with them.
In contrast, NATO planners say the international community has 200 to 300 modern jets that could be quickly deployed to Libya from bases stretching from Gibraltar to Greece, and from US and French carriers in the Mediterranean Sea.
These would include top-of-the-line Eurofighter Typhoons, used by British, Italian, and Spanish air forces. Also available are the formidable French Dassault Rafale fighters and the F-18 Super Hornet, the backbone of US naval air power.
Backbone of US naval air power. Sounds impressive.
5. Bombing Moe gives the powers that be the opportunity to claim arrant nonsense like “we’re rebalancing U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on democracy and human rights.” It gives birth to new noble operation naming conventions, like perhaps, Libyan Freedom or Benghazi Shield or [fill in the blank with two words, one geographical, one uplifting].
Permalink Comments off
UPDATED
Ten reasons the President decided to bomb Moe:
1. Bombs for Moe, austerity for the US middle class. Whatever it costs in cash for another war, budget cutting for domestic programs that benefit working Americans. That’s because bombing Moe comes out of the special overflowing cash sack for war. It’s the right set of priorities and how we win the future.
2. Uncle Sam prepares for war on Moe and and clears the banksters to start paying dividends again. That’s great for the stock market even though maybe not for you. And that’s what’s important. It’s morning in America.
3. Weapons manufacturers will get new order for cruise missiles and JDAMs used up on Moe. It might mean a few bonuses for arms-making CEO’s.
4. The mainstream media will be able to debate whether or not the military is overstretched or tired when going into action against Moe, erasing any stupid ideas about cutting its budget.
5. Bombing Moe provides a distraction from the idea that if we’re going to do it to him maybe we ought to be doing it to the rotten people running Bahrain and Yemen, too.
6. Moe is conveniently murderous, mean, crazy and really not very photogenic. But unlike other really murderous, mean, crazy and not very photogenic despots in other countries, he’s on television all the time right now.
7. Bombing Moe affords an opportunity for all the retired military men involved in the arms manufacturing industry to get back on television as talking head experts. They can talk about all the great gear we’re going to use on Moe. And all the feeble stuff he has on defense.
8. Bombing Moe makes it easier for the President to ignore Ed on MSNBC’s Ed Show asking why our leader isn’t in Wisconsin or Michigan with his base. “I have to bomb Moe, first,” thinks the President. “That takes time.”
9. Bombing Moe is a heckuva lot easier than doing something about the one in six working Americans who are unemployed or underemployed. Plus bombing in a foreign country is a lot more watchable on television than the broken lives of unemployed Americans.
10. All the serious people in DC and northern Virginia, plus the oil companies, are for bombing Moe.
Bonus reason:
11. It is important for every President to show he has balls by starting his own unique war. Bombing Moe does that for Mr. Obama.
Mirrored at GlobalSecurity.
Once upon a time there was a hyterical song from the Reagan era, “Libyan Hit Squad,” by Tongue Avulsion.
“We’re the Libyan hit squad, Moe Ghadafi is our boss!”
It’s over fast. Listen for the last line on Nancy Reagan. Naughty.