Interview from Russia Today:

by Kirk W. Tofte

When a person lives in Iowa, as I do, one seldom gets the opportunity to meet with a leading anti-war intellectual. But on August 31, 2009 I had just such an opportunity over lunch with Ismael Hossein-zadeh, the author of The Political Economy and U.S. Militarism.

Hossein-zadeh is a profile in courage. He is a sixty-three-year-old native of a Kurdish village in the mountains of Iran with less than four hundred residents. One of six children, he miraculously graduated from Tehran University and ventured to New York City to do his graduate work with less than one hundred dollars in his pocket.

Hossein-zadeh received his doctorate degree from the New School for Social Research. He has taught economics at Drake University in Des Moines for over two decades.

His most recent book, now available in paperback, is both courageous and profound. By his own admission, Hossein-zadeh knows little about the Austrian School of economics and even less about this website. In fact, much of the economic analysis in his book runs along Keynesian and even Marxist-Leninist lines.

Yet, like all great anti-war intellectuals, Hossein-zadeh’s approach to the subjects he discusses is inter-disciplinary with a heavy emphasis on historical facts. Also, his book is full of quotes from names LewRockwell.com readers will readily recognize: Chalmers Johnson, Smedley Butler, Michael Scheuer, William Hartung, James Mann, Patrick Buchanan, Robert Higgs and Lew Rockwell. Hossein-zadeh also quotes Paul Craig Roberts several times in his book and during our lunch he expressed his total admiration for Roberts’ work – thus, the title of this article.

When Hossein-zadeh discusses American militarism, he talks less about a military-industrial complex than he does a military-industrial parasite. Furthermore, the military-industrial establishment in the United States isn’t even that complex an entity. It consists of an “iron triangle” made up of civilian governors (the president, the congressional oversight committees and so forth), professional personnel serving in the military and the 85,000 private contractors who arm the military machine and who profit mightily from their contributions to the overall effort.

Looking back through history, Hossein-zadeh notes that the Roman Empire used its military to achieve economic, territorial and other ends. After Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, however, the military establishment undermined republican principles of civilian governance and ultimately created a Roman military empire. Rome was transformed from a classic economic empire into the first military-parasitic empire.

The British Empire, like its Roman predecessor, started out as an economic empire that used its military to conquer territories and force the transfer of the resultant colonies’ resources to England. But Britain’s mercantilist policies were expensive ones. Once these policies (which included protectionism) helped England achieve international economic superiority, Britain’s colonial-administrative forces became a very costly redundancy. The primary role of England’s military became, after the last Corn Laws were passed in 1848, to merely keep foreign lands and markets open for free trade.

But Britain’s colonial military-administrative establishment – which was huge – did not go quietly into the night. It took less than fifty years after 1848 for France, Germany and the United States to threaten England’s temporary economic superiority. Britain’s colonial military-administrative forces reasserted themselves as England returned to its policies of protectionism, militarism and colonialism. Military conflicts inevitably ensued (e.g., the Boer War) which ultimately led to World War I.

For the first 150 years of its existence, the United States used the military to defend itself, protect its internal markets and to expand its territory. Many wars were fought and the United States military was expanded in each case to fight them. But unlike Rome and Britain, prior to 1940 the United States always reduced its military to its pre-war size.

At this point in his narrative, Hossein-zadeh tells the fascinating story of how the ruling elites in America worked through the Council on Foreign Relations to convince Franklin Roosevelt and, subsequently, Harry Truman that the United States must create a permanent military-economic establishment to help plan for the future of the United States and the international community after World War II. In this fascinating chapter, Hossein-zadeh shares many facts such as the following:

1. FDR agreed on November 28, 1941 to inform congress and the American people that “if Japan attacked Singapore or the East Indies, the security of the United States would be endangered and war might result.” At the time, a vast majority of Americans were not at all likely to believe such a claim. On December 7, 1941 the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor took care of this problem for FDR.

2. By mid-1941, before America entered World War II, FDR’s outside brain trust concluded that Germany could not possibly win the war after Hitler’s foolish invasion of Russia. They began to draw up the plans for a new economic-military-diplomatic order before the United States entered the war. These plans were later announced and adopted at Bretton Woods after the war.

3. In adherence to these plans, Harry Truman remobilized the U.S. military beginning in 1950 – in part to ward off a possible recession. As Hossein-zadeh puts it, “Military spending rose – in constant (2002) dollar – from $150 billion in 1950 (the last year of ephemeral postwar demobilization) to $500 billion in 1953.”

Hossein-zadeh next traces the rise of parasitic-militarism through this period up through the 1970s when the post-World War II consensus among the nation’s elites began to unravel. This part of the story includes the “Nixon shocks” (e.g., his unilateral moves to abandon the gold standard and impose new tariffs), to Jimmy Carter’s transformation from a Trilateralist to a militarist and Ronald Reagan’s “second Cold War.”

But it is the phase after the fall of the Berlin Wall that gets the most frightful in Hossein-zadeh’s telling. At that time, former defense secretary Robert McNamara said the defense budget should be cut in half. The Secretary of Defense at the time, Dick Cheney, said it should be increased after the fall of the Soviet Union. Obviously, Cheney and the military-industrial parasites have easily won the battle over defense spending. The United States will probably spend at least one trillion dollars a year on our military during the foreseeable future.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh has written a must-read book. His chapter on the real reasons for the Iraq War – which have nothing to do with oil – are worth the price of the book all by itself. He and Paul Craig Roberts come from completely different direction philosophically. But they reach the same conclusion: “Enough is enough.”

by Paul Craig Roberts

Americans think that they have “freedom and democracy” and that politicians are held accountable by elections. The fact of the matter is that the US is ruled by powerful interest groups who control politicians with campaign contributions. Our real rulers are an oligarchy of financial and military/security interests and AIPAC, which influences US foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.

Have a look at economic policy. It is being run for the benefit of large financial concerns, such as Goldman Sachs.

It was the banks, not the millions of Americans who have lost homes, jobs, health insurance, and pensions, that received $700 billion in TARP funds. The banks used this gift of capital to make more profits. In the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, Goldman Sachs announced record second quarter profits and large six-figure bonuses for every employee.

The Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy is another gift to the banks. It lowers their cost of funds and increases their profits. With the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, banks became high-risk investment houses that trade financial instruments such as interest rate derivatives and mortgage backed securities. With abundant funds supplied virtually free by the Federal Reserve, banks are paying depositors virtually nothing on their savings.

Despite the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy, beginning October 1 banks are raising the annual percentage rate (APR) on credit card purchases and cash advances and on balances that have a penalty rate because of late payment. Banks are also raising the late fee. In the midst of the worst economy since the 1930s, heavily indebted Americans, who are losing their jobs and their homes, are to be bled into bankruptcy by the very banks that are being subsidized with TARP funds and low interest rates.

Moreover, it is the American public that is on the hook for the TARP money and the low interest rates. As the US government’s budget is 50% or more in the red, the TARP money has to be borrowed from abroad or monetized by the Fed. This means more pressure on the US dollar’s exchange value and a rise in import prices and also domestic inflation.

Americans will thus pay for the TARP and low interest rate subsidies to their financial rulers with erosion in the purchasing power of the dollar. What we are experiencing is a massive redistribution of income from the American public to the financial sector.

And this is occurring during a Democratic administration headed by America’s first black president, with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

Is there a government anywhere that less represents its citizens than the US government?

Consider America’s wars. As of the moment of writing, the out-of-pocket cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is $900,000,000,000. When you add in the already incurred future costs of veterans benefits, interest on the debt, the forgone use of the resources for productive purposes, and such other costs as computed by Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes, “our” government has wasted $3,000,000,000,000–three thousand billion dollars–on two wars that have no benefit whatsoever for any American whose income does not derive from the military/security complex, about which five-star general President Eisenhower warned us.

It is now a proven fact that the US invasion of Iraq was based on lies and deception of the American public. The only beneficiaries were the armaments industries, Blackwater, Halliburton, military officers who enjoy higher rates of promotion during war, and Muslim extremists whose case the US government proved by its unprovoked aggression against Muslims. No one else benefitted. Iraq was a threat to no one, and finding Saddam Hussein and executing him after a kangaroo trial had no effect whatsoever on ending the war or preventing the start of others.

The cost of America’s wars is a huge burden on a bankrupt country, but the cost incurred by veterans might be even higher. Homelessness is a prevalent condition of veterans, as is post-traumatic stress. American soldiers, who naively fought for the munitions industry’s wars, for high compensation for the munitions CEOs, and for dividends and capital gains for the munitions shareholders, paid not only with lives and lost limbs, but also with broken marriages, ruined careers, psychiatric disorders, and prison sentences for failing to make child support payments.

What did Americans gain from an unaffordable war in Iraq that lasted far longer than World War II and that put into power Shi’ites allied with Iran?

The answer is obvious: nothing whatsoever.

What did the armaments industry gain? Billions of dollars in profits.

What about President Obama? “A corporate marketing creation,” sums up the distinguished British journalist John Pilger.

Obama is the presidential candidate who promised to end the war in Iraq. He hasn’t. But he has escalated the war in Afghanistan, started a new war in Pakistan, intends to repeat the Yugoslav scenario in the Caucasus, and appears determined to start a war in South America. In response to the acceptance by US puppet president of Columbia, Alvaro Uribe, of seven US military bases in Columbia, Venezuela warned South American countries that the “winds or war are beginning to blow.”

Here we have the US government, totally dependent on the generosity of foreigners to finance its red ink, which extends in large quantities as far as the eye can see, completely under the thumb of the military/security complex, which will destroy us all in order to meet Wall Street share price expectations.

Why does any American care who rules Afghanistan? The country has nothing to do with us.

Did the armed services committees of the House and Senate calculate the risk of destabilizing nuclear armed Pakistan when they acquiesced to Obama’s new war there, a war that has already displaced two million Pakistanis?

No, of course not. The whores took their orders from the same military/security oligarchy that instructed Obama.

The great American superpower and its 300 million people are being driven straight into the ground by the narrow interest of the big banks and the munitions industry. People, and not only Americans, are losing their sons, husbands, brothers, and fathers for no other reason than the profits of US armaments corporations, and the gullible American people seem proud of it. Those ribbon decals on their cars, SUVs and monster trucks proclaim their naive loyalty to the armaments industries and to the whores in Washington who promote wars.

Will Americans, smashed and destroyed by “their” government’s policy, which always puts Americans last, ever understand who their real enemies are?

Will Americans realize that they are not ruled by elected representatives but by an oligarchy that owns the Washington whorehouse?

Will Americans ever understand that they are impotent serfs?