NIPP & CIKR - Whom the Gods Would Destroy

BBC reports that "A long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security has been released by Wikileaks."

The State Department document, published by BBC on line with embedded links, is dated 18 February 2009 and was compiled by diplomatic posts around the world at the behest of the Secretary of State.

The aim of the document was to compile a list of "critical infrastructure and key resources" outside the United States deemed essential to U.S. national security.

The compilation was initiated in order to provide "unifying structure" for the Department of Homeland Security's "National Infrastructure Protection Plan" (NIPP) authorised by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, (HSPD 7).

Under 42 U.S.C. 5915 (d), (Patriot Act of 2001), "critical infrastructure" is defined as "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States [that] the incapacitation or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety or any combination [thereof]."

According to the BBC, the list includes communication hubs, gas pipelines, mines, pharmaceutical plants, and even an anti-snake venom factory in Australia.

After reporting on the above, the BBC article concludes by stating that the wikileak "inevitably prompts the question as to exactly what positive benefit Wikileaks was intending in releasing this document."

BARFO  will proffer an answer.

The benefit of the leak is that it shows that the United States Government is clinically insane. It has simply laid claim to whatever it wants in the world, anywhere.

Let it be clear. The NIPP explicitly calls for the "protection of the nation's CI/KR" -- that is, the infrastructure and resoures of the United States. But Siberia, Denmark and Australia are not in the United States. They are foreign and sovereign countries responsible for their own security and welfare.

Nevertheless, in the eyes of the United States Government this minor detail is irrelevant. Anything we need is deemed essentially ours. This is not a slip of the tongue or a mere casual way of speaking. It is the necessary and inevitable result of neocon strategic policies which this blog has warned against many times.

The essential premise of neocon strategy, as initially drafted in 1992 by Dick Cheney's Defense Planning Guide (DPG) was that the military preeminence of the United States following the collapse of the Soviet Union required a strategic "refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential global competitor." The DPG noted that potential threats could arise in any area of the globe ("including Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, Southwest Asia...the terriotry of the former Soviet Union...Latin America, Oceania and Sub Saharan Africa") and thus "the U.S. will be concerned with preventing the domination of key regions by a hotile power."

Eight years later, the neocon Project for a New America Century, incorporated Cheney's DPG draft into a defense policy paper entitled "Rebuiling America's Defenses." The paper called for the promotion of "America's principles" abroad by a "grand strategy" which would seize the opportunity of the USSR's demise and "preserve American preeminence" by a strategy of full spectrum power projection.

Fundamental was the maintenance and enhancement of nuclear and missile systems "to defend the American homeland ... and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world. (Op. Cit. p. v.)

Power projection itself would take place by "securing and expanding" so-called "zones of democratic peace". These zones (e.g. Kosovo or Iraq) would comprise "forward operating bases" which would serve as a "force multiplier in power projection operations as well as help solidify political and security ties with host nations. (Op. Cit. pg. 20.)

The Report explicitly discounted the existence of any serious or actual threat to American national security. Instead, it argued that American military strategy should aim to preclude any potential threat from arising.

"Even if such enemies [we]re merely able to threaten American allies... America's ability to project power will be deeply compromised."

In other words, power projection had become an end itself. The policy did not simply argue for the projection of power to prevent an actual or imminent harm but to preclude any potential compromise to power projection itself.

This bully policy was made official in Bush's “National Security Strategy” of 2003. Most recently, this past month, NATO's mission has been redefined so as to subsume that organization to the U.S strategy of ongoing power projection around the world.

The thesis has to be properly understood. It's premise is that the United States is "safe" only when it acts to prevent "potential" threats from arising. Since a "potential" threat can arise anywhere, the United States must project power everywhere in some form or another. The PNAC paper makes clear that there is no question of regional trade offs or triage and that the new strategy requires a full spectrum build up of all defense systems and all types of forces.

By and large, both the DPG and the PNAC paper conceived this strategy in gross geo-political terms. Although both documents recognized the existence and potential of true terrorist actions, the primary "potential" enemies and threats were seen to be other nation states.

However, immediately upon 9/11, the full spectrum paradigm became extended so as to encompass actions and threats by individual terrorists or ad hoc terrorists networks. National security now included detecting and combatting potential terrorists.

As we pointed out the day following the Trade Center attacks,

And who is the enemy? All Arabs? No.... not all.... The American militias? Perhaps, but not always. The Irish? At times. The Basque? Could be. What the Government will have to presume is that everyone is at least a potential terrorist. In the most fundamental sense that is a presumption which is entirely antithetical to the concept of civil friendship, i.e., societas."

It was therefore of no possible surprise that just the past holiday week, Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano stated that the Department was considering installing full spectrum scanners on trains and bus stations. Defending against an initiated attack is a limited undertaking. Once one undertakes to fight a potential then any potential becomes the enemy and that includes "blendables" like any of us...or them...

But neither actual nor potential terrorists exist in a vaccum. They operate against targets of one sort or another. Thus, the correlative to fighting "potential" terrorists is the need to protect "potential terrorist targets" and since any potential terrorist can hit a potential target which could potentially have an effect on the perfectly safe and unimpeded military, economic or social security of the United States, it follows that protection of "the Homeland" requires protection of any and all assets anywhere that are of use or necessity to the homeland.

This is the thought process of a criminally insane paranoiac and it is the declared policy of the United States Government.

It is certainly the case that industrial processes are highly interconnected and that, even more so, in a globalized economy, there is no real national autonomy or autarchy. But what this means is that nation states no longer exist as independent universes but , on the face of the earth together, are more nearly analogous to individuals in society.

What we learn as individuals is that all life under the sun suffers conflict and must abide risks. It is a fact we learn to live with by exercising our courage and taking reasonable precautions to avoid (but not to prevent) harm while respecting the autonomy and interests of others. We do not assert a claim or seek to control or plan to "protectively" seize the property of others simply because it might be of use to us. We refrain from such conduct because the spontaneity of life is a varied and complex reality and this is more valuable to us than the deadliness of total security. We may be led to songs of sorrow or shouts of joy, but we resolve to accept the viscitudes of our existence with courage.

But the coward cowers under his blanket quivorously conjuring up all possible horrible things that could go wrong. Given power, the coward's inflamed imagination turns him into a tyrant who sees potential threats everywhere and seeks to pre-emptively, pre-vent and pro-tect against all harm to the repression and misery of all else and, ultimately, to the extinguishment of life itself because, as we have said, life itself is full of conflict and risk.

It is thus that the coward becomes a tyrant and the tyrant an agent of death.

Perhaps that answers BBC's question.

deposuit potentes de sede et dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.

©Barfo, 2010

Top Two Percent seeking to Gun Down Social Security & Medicare

The Top Two percent that own this country are gunning for your medicare and social security, the New York Times inadvertently disclosed today.

As has been widely reported, Obama’s Budget Deficit Commission, chaired by Erskin Bowles and Alan (“Cow Tit”) Simpson, has recommended a variety of “cut backs,” “rate holds” and changes to Social Security in order to balance the budget by 2030. (Simpson, it will be remembered, was the jackass who denigrated Social Security as a “cow with 300 million tits.” ) However, the reportage on the Commission's “findings” and recommendations has been somewhat on the vague side, giving the general impression that whatever cut backs to Social Security were envisioned they were something way off in the distance...nothing to worry about ... not to worry.

Not so. Today the New York Times ran a budget balancing interactive which allowed viewers to try their own hand at appeasing the Balanced Budget gorgon. Inadvertently, the Times let slip what the ruling class has in mind for the rest of us. Summarizing the “options” that are on the table the Times disclosed the following proposal:

Proposal: Raise the Social Security Retirement Age to 68 or, even better yet, 70.

"The increase in longevity has caused some to favor higher eligibility ages for Social Security. This option would gradually raised the age from the currently planned 67 to 68. "

Proposal: Increase Medicare eligibility age to 68 (and make people buy private insurance)

“...Americans who are living longer ...should work longer...” after all “the new health care bill will allow people in their late 60s ...to buy a policy through an exchange..”

Proposal: Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes.

“Under this option workers below the 60th percentile of life time earnings would continue to have their retirement over time....” Workers “just above the 60th percentile” would have their
retirement benefits cut.

Proposal: Tighten eligibility for disability.

Hey! If you got only one leg, you can still shine shoes!

Proposal: Cap Medicare Growth starting in 2013

“...among other things this would crack down on many hospitals and doctors with the highest costs...” And among the other things...?


In other words the Top Two percent who plunder the country and its workers in order to fatten their bulging pockets want to impoverish you further in the name of a balanced budget that will only benefit financial speculators.

The Top Two percent working through their Republican Puppet Party and Fauxbama want you to work until you drop and while you do pay more, and more, and more, to fatten the coffers of “insurance” companies that pull the plug on you when you fall ill. And if you do survive at 70, they still want to cut your benefits. Sixtieth percentile? It goes like this

0 ----|50|--60----2-100

In plain English, the plan is to reduce benefits for everyone who is not destitute and living out of a car at a Walmart parking lot.

The French took the streets in face of such proposals, so should Americans. Very loud and very clear.

.

Pope Does El Camino

Since it was not reported by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or the U.S. press in general (except for the Washington Post on its back pages), BARFO will note that Pope Benedict has paid a second visit to Spain where he made pilgrimage (mini-version) to the tomb of Saint James, at Compostella.

The Princes of Asturias, welcome Pope Benedict to the Accompaniement
of the Papal and Royal Anthems

Arriving in Galicia, the Pope exhorted Spain and Europe to be "concerned not only with people’s material needs but also with their moral and social, spiritual and religious needs, since all these are genuine requirements of our common humanity."

At the Shrine of St. James Benedict stated that "To go on pilgrimage really means to step out of ourselves in order to encounter God where he has revealed himself The Church is this embrace of God, in which men and women learn also to embrace their brothers and sisters and to discover in them the divine image and likeness which constitutes the deepest truth of their existence, and which is the origin of genuine freedom."

The Pope has called for a rapprochment ("meeting") between the Church and the Spanish Government which are in conflict over the issues of abortion, divorce and marriage. Spain's prime minister Jose Luis Zapatero was not in attendance to greet His Holiness at the airport, and a gay "kiss in" is planned on Sunday when Benedict visits Barcelona to consecrate Gaudi's fantasmagorical Cathedral of the Holy Family, a hundred years in the building.

Earlier in the week, at a Papal Audience on the eve of All Saints Day, the Pope stated that "God Excludes No One."

.

Zionist Halloween

David Salzer Broder, the highly respected, Pulitzer Prize, Pundit on the OpEd board of the Washington Post has decided to ring in Halloween with a sorcerer’s call for “confrontation” against Iran. The witches’ brew of Broder’s argument goes like this:

1. To get reelected in 2012, Obama must get the economy moving again (i.e., “harness the forces that might spur new growth”).

2. No human being can do anything to accelerate the immutable “tidal force” of the “business cycle” (i.e., the invisible hand of that “market magic” that governs our lives like some remote and impersonal god).

3. But there is one other thing that “might affect the economy” and that thing is “war”. After all, it was World War II, that “finally resolved” the Great Depression.

4. Therefore if he wants to get reelected, Obama should prepare for war against Iran because “as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”

If Broder truly swallows his own bubbling concoction of sophistries, he needs to locked up in a sanatorium as a demented, dangerous psycopath.

In fact even if Broder does not swallow his own fetid brew he needs to be locked up as a demented, dangerous psycopath for once again doing Israel’s dirty work of poisoning the public well.

The Washington Post has long provided pulp for Washington’s coven of think-tank experts and press pundits agitating on Israel’s behalf. What David Broder is stirring up is simply more of the same ol’ tired Zionist swill for war against an Iran whom Broder labels --- without an iota of explanation or argument -- as “the greatest threat to the world”... The one which now replaces that former greatest threat to the world which replaced the one before that came after the one that came before.... But we digress.

Let us deconstruct Broder’s Brew

“I am not suggesting,” Broder intones piously, “that the president incite a war to get elected.” Oh nooooo. Far be it from Broder to do such an “awful and frightening” thing. Noooo. Noooo. BUT

“[C]hallenging Iran’s ambition” and “orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs” will:

a. “help” Obama “politically” because the GOP will have to support him.

b. “And, as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”

Anyone can see that being helped “politically” has nothing to do with the stated issue of reviving the economy. Item “a” is thrown into the stew as a polemical “extra benefit” to Obama. More importantly, this irrelevant extra goodie occupies the space where the middle premise normally appears and thus conveniently obscures the fact that Broder’s economic “argument” boils down to: “Orchestrating a showdown” will improve the economy because “as tensions rise” the economy will improve.

Such a logical tour de force is truly awesome! A more exquisite petitio principii can hardly be imagined! A tethered ox could not trod a more perfect circle!

To wrap it all up, Broder concludes with the marvelous non sequitur of :

“The nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world ... [and] ... if he can confront this threat... he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.”

In other words, the Q.E.D. of it all has nothing to do with economics but is all a question of “rallying” the nation and being hailed as a hero in the saecula saeculorum of history.

The sum and substance? David S. Broder is incapable of anything resembling an argument and simply throws anything into the bubbling pot in order to urge a confrontation with Iran.

But let it be granted that, being a paid political cackler, Broder isn't very good at a passably cogent sequence of thought; and, Broder's inarticulateness aside, let us analyze the claim on its merits that "accelarating preparations for war" will improve the economy. No sane or decent person would make such an “argument”.  Ever.

Saying that war resolved the Great Depression is a highly dubious proposition. That global catastrophe left only two nations in the entire world standing: the United States and Argentina. Argentina held maybe 3% of the world gold reserves (there were so many bars that they were stacked in the Ministry’s corridors); the United States held the remainder. In addition, the United States had the only factories, railways, roads and vessels that weren’t bombed, blasted, sunk or otherwise destroyed. (Argentina had the cows.) In this sense, and at the cost of a mere 60 million lives around the world, the U.S.A. was left economically triumphant and could dictate terms to everyone else to its own benefit -- which is what we did.

That situation did not improve the economy so much a it destroyed the competition and left the victor with a huge hoard of plunder. Serious historians (and this excludes cackling harpies like Broder) understand that the underlying issue of the World War was economic hegemony: who would amass control of what regions’ gold and resources to the detriment and loss of whom else. If Broder is arguing for this type of “economic growth” a warrant for his arrest needs to be issued forthwith so that he may be arraigned before the International Court in the Hague and tried on counts of inciting genocide, crimes against humanity and war. Yes.... Broder’s little brew is a crime under European law.

If Broder means that the process of manufacturing tanks and bombs and boots and tons of tins of spam is what “got the economy going again” -- that too is a dubious proposition because while it certainly made capitalist cash registers jingle, it did so by running up a stratospheric public debt... a public debt that was only balanced by the fact that we could get the rest of the world to pay off huge junks of it because, as just stated, we were left as the sole standing top dog.

But let us indulge further and let it be supposed that a “war economy” gets things booming by creating jobs in munitions, shoe and spam factories and by running up orders for the slaughter of millions of pigs to be hashed up into tins. Every economist who has studied this issue knows that this process is a “junk recovery” much like the spam is the junk food the process produces. This type of recovery benefits what used to be called “war profiteers” but it benefits no one else. Instead of creating anything that can be further capitalized, it creates a mountain of destructibles -- stuff that gets blown up, sunk to the bottom of the sea, pulverized. Just as spam or fast food don’t produce anything resembling real nutrition, this type of “economic growth” in fact only leads to further impoverishment.

Has Broder truly forgotten that the "preparations for war" in Vietnam far from making the United States more prosperous bankrupted the prospects for the Great Society?

A simple but basically true observation will illustrate the point. “To he who hath, more shall be given...” and “It takes money to make money” are two proverbs that focus on the same thing: capital creates more capital. But capital is not just money profits. Resources and materials that are put into production are capital, as is the machinery used to process those materials, as are the roads and railroads that are used to transports the goods, as are the schools and books that are used to produce an intelligent work force. An economy that produces serviceable things that can be used to create more serviceable things is an economy that truly grows because it is always producing more useable forms of capital. An economy that produces bombs that get blown up, basically wastes capital in order to produce a mere monetary profit for a few.

Thus, even on its own terms Broder’s argument is economically obscene. What he is palavering for is to “stimulate” the economy by throwing more money at the military industrial complex and the excuse for doing so is saber rattling against Iran.

The “defense budget” of the United States already exceeds the defense budgets of all other nations in the world combined. A HUGE amount of public treasure is already spent on defense procurement, research and development. And still the economy is in the tank. How is throwing yet more money at this devouring gargantuan monster going to “create good paying jobs” for the 20 million unemployed. It isn’t. Nor will it solve the problems of liquidity and what is now being called “foreclosuregate”.

Broder’s argument is unworthy of an imbecile.

But let us boldly go where no imbecile has gone before. Let it be supposed that we could “revive” the economy by making war-like noises and preparations all “without suggesting of course that the president incite a war to get reelected.”

Noooo! Noooo! Perish the thought. David Salzer Broder is simply recommending a form of economic and diplomatic masturbation that will stop short of actually shooting.

To which one may reply: good luck.

We suggest that Broder, even if it is late in life, engage in some penis practice and when he is finished, come back and re-write the article.

©Barfo, 2010

.

The Mudia and the Mud

According to the Associated Press, the White House is now letting it leak that, in expectation of getting trounced in the November elections, Obama "will put greater emphasis on fiscal discipline, a nod to a nation sick of spending and to a Congress poised to become more Republican." ["Obama Likely..."]

As usual, the corporate mudia muddies the issue by not making clear which nation it has in mind. If the mudia means the "corporate nation" then, true enough, any spending on the poor, the unemployed, the sick, the young is just plain profligate! But if by "nation" the AP means the rest of us, the what the "popular nation" is sick of is spending to bail out banks and crooks -- but I repeat myself.

Worse than mudia mudification is Obambi's craven cowardice. A Quisling would have shown more gumption; and, in fact, Palestinian President Abbas has -- which is not saying much. After pre-emptively caving in to the Mitch McConnell and his gang of corporate slime within days of his inaugural and getting roundly kicked in the teeth for doing so, Obambi now says that he must crawl even more abjectly than before licking the boot of the Budget Balancers.

What kind of imbecile could have lived through the Clinton years and be in politics and not know that the Republicans are not interested in consensus. In fact anyone with a smattering acquaintence with America history realizes that they have never, never, ever been interested in reasonable consensus. They are rabid ideologues of corporate selfishness. The only time they ever raise a plaintive, pitiable cry for cooperation is when they are about to get trounced and the instant their opponent gives pause to consider they spring up from their hunched and meek position and stab him in the kidneys. Republicans are a moral and human putresence. How could Obambi not have known that?

If this is what Harvard does to the human brain, parents are advised to Save Their Children by sending them to some junior college which will at least leave their balls alone.

Of course Obambi was already licking the heel of the Social Security Doomsdayers, indicating that he is ever willing to "balance the budget" on the broken back of the old and the infirm, when, that is, he is not balancing it on the shoulders of the young, the jobless, the weak.

If Obama really wants to balance the budget GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

If Obama really wants to balance the budget CUT DEFENSE SPENDING.

If Obama really wants to balance the budget TAX THE RICH AT PROGRESSIVE RATES.

If Obama really really really wants to balance the budget he will increase productivity which will generate revenues; and the way to do that is to STOP INCENTIVISING THE EXPORT OF JOB AND CAPITAL OVERSEAS.

Yes, folks, although we at BARFO'S have, the mudia will never tell you ; but American banks and corporations are currently rewarded for shipping production overseas and for NOT reinvesting the profits earned overseas back into the U.S. More and more, everything corporations do they do abroad. The only connection they have with the United States is a shadow office. The Republican claim that tax breaks will create jobs is a brazen cheat. It will create jobs, indeed, OVERSEAS.

What the Democrats need to do is pull the dildo out of their asses and start marching with determined fearlessness to the left in order to put some social sanity back into the country's political economy while there still is something worth being called a "country".

Oh for a party that had the courage to say: "We will march into the marble halls of Congress, bringing with us the revolutionary will of the broad masses from which we came, called by fate and forming fate. We do not want to join this pile of manure. We are coming to shovel it out!

.

A Large Investment into Britains Future

In addition the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the lay-off of 500,000 paid government workers and drastic cuts to social services, pensions, and local council subsidies. Chancellor George Osborne said the cuts were needed to promote sanity, fairness and growth. "It is a hard road, but it leads to a better future," Mr. Osborne said.

Bravoh ol' Boy
Osborne getting the Pat Pat from PM

The Difference an Ocean Makes

The news from France shows what a stiff mid-section can do. Since September, French workers have been on intermittent strikes in protest against President Sarkozy's austerity reforms.

Like pro-bank, pro-corporate, pro-fat cat politicians anywhere, Sarkozy has been warning and whining of the need to cut back on worker living standards in order to protect the "national" (i.e. corporate) balance sheet.

Compared to the draconian cut-backs in Greece and the seldom mentioned IMF devastation imposed on Lithuanian society, Sarkozy's proposal to increase the retirement age by two years seems small beer. But the French worker is quick to taste the vinegar in wine. The International Monetary Order (aka IMF) is out to fatten up something called "trade" on the backs of the actual working people who produce the goods and services traded. The French worker is taking a stand.

At the beginning of September 1.2 to 2.7 million workers throughout the country went on strike. On 23 September and again on 2 October 1 to 3 million. On 12 October an estimated 1.2 - 3.5 million filled the streets.

Not unexpectedly the whores in the French National Assembly voted the Sarkozy line notwithstanding this outpouring of popular discontent. The response of the French worker since Saturday (16 October) has been to go on Stike Plus: they have barricaded petrol stations and shut down the country's oil refineries.

Oil is to countries what blood is to humans, and the Workers Tourniquette has put the squeeze on the Elysée Palace.

It remains to be seen what the government will do. To date, it is treading cautiously, warning its own forces of repression (the police) not to provoke anything. This has nothing to do with humanitarian sentiment, a quality lacking in most governments and certainly not one of Sarko's salient characteristics, as was amply demonstrated by his violent response to the unrest in immigrant housing projects and, more recently, in his Reich-like deportation of gypsies.

No-- the government is treading lightly because the polls show that 70% of the French people continue to support the strike action. The government is sitting on the proverbial tinderbox -- or, perhaps more acurately, doesn't know that it isn't.

This is an astonishing figure. There can be no doubt that the strikes have inconvenienced the rest of the French population; and yet despite that, the people still support the strike.

What a difference an ocean makes! The French are not afraid of revolution. They know that revolutions are at times the only way to rectify organized injustice and that, despite the temporary pain, society survives and improves.

It is a canard that revolutions leave things worse off than before or that they do not change anything. Revolutions can never change human nature; but while they usually fall short of their highest goals, they just as usually do result in corrective change. For a people that have the courage, stand up for their own interests the gains are worth the risk.

It remains to be seen what the denouement will be. Much depends on whether the 70% holds. The government will do everything it can divide the people before marginalizing "disruptive radicals" and, it must be said, governments have a good record at doing precisely that.

But the contrast remains. Americans like nothing more than thumping their guts and sneering at the supposedly "cowardly" and "effete" French; and yet, when successive state and federal governments propose cut backs to social security, medicare and social services, make college education a road to debt peonage, allow illness to become the road to bankruptcy and plunder the country by shipping jobs overseas and rewarding corporations for investing their capital in foreign countries, the response of the American so-called "middle class" is so enfeebled as to make Calvin Coolidge look like an activist.

.