Beware the global threat of U.S. capitalism

After the end of WW2, the U.S. pursued an expanding agenda of imperialism. After all, the U.S. had demonstrated its military strength when it used nuclear weapons in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Who had the means to challenge the U.S. as it strove for world domination?

Unfortunately for the U.S. and fortunately for the rest of mankind, the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear capability and thus established itself as a counterweight to the U.S. agenda. There were limits to U.S. international aggression.

In August 1991, President Boris Yeltsin banned the Soviet Communist Party in Russia and seized its assets; Yeltsin recognized the independence of the Baltic republics; Ukraine, followed by other republics, declared itself independent.

In September 1991, the Congress of People’s Deputies voted for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Gone was the only alternative international power able to place limits on U.S. hegemony.

On January 29, 1991, George H.W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on the State of the Union, stated, “I come to this House of the people to speak to you and all Americans, certain that we stand at a defining hour. Halfway around the world, we are engaged in a great struggle in the skies and on the seas and sands. We know why we’re there: We are Americans, part of something larger than ourselves. For two centuries, we’ve done the hard work of freedom. And tonight, we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity.

“What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind—peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law.”

I was confused, what does he mean, “new world order”?

I have come to realize that this was a prelude to the fall of the Soviet Union. What Bush was referring to was a “new world order,” living in peace and cooperation under the domination and control of the U.S.; a world order that would allow U.S. corporate investments globally where investors could exploit human and natural resources without interference from local governments.

In 1997, The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., that focused on United States foreign policy was established as a non-profit educational organization. The PNAC’s stated goal was “to promote American global leadership.” The organization stated that “American leadership is good both for America and for the world,” and sought to build support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity”.

Some of the folks who were active in the PNAC were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, all becoming influential members of the George W. Bush administration in 2001.

The PNAC released a statement in 1997 that stated the U.S. faced a challenge to “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests. They advocated increasing the defense budget and challenging regimes hostile to U.S. interests. Iraq and Saddam Hussein were their first targets of interest. The PNAC asserted that the United States should “seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership” by “maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces.

Can anyone see a link between their objectives and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a country that had no involvement in 9-11 and was no threat to the security of the U.S.?

It is important to draw connections between past policies and actions and the situations in which we currently find the U.S. The U.S. has been mired in wars since the 9-11 attack, an attack not yet clearly defined. Controversial findings by architects, engineers, and scientists insist that we question the official explanation of events on that day. Over the past 14 years, dozens of questions continue to remain unanswered. This was a pivotal moment in, not only our history, but the history of the entire world.

It is interesting to note that PNAC, in their goal to gather public support for U.S. international aggression, stated that we need another Pearl Harbor. They knew that a destructive attack on U.S. soil, with the loss of many lives, would mobilize the public to support their agenda. And, they were right.

Is it merely a coincidence that 19 Middle Eastern men armed only with box cutters were able to successfully bring down three World Trade Center towers and crash a plane into the Pentagon without any intervention by a multi-billion dollar U.S. defense system? If you can believe that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

Where this country is today is a direct result of 9-11. That event opened the door for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, a sovereign nation; the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation, that resulted in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, his eventual capture and murder; the U.S. bombing of Libya, a sovereign nation, that resulted in the overthrow of Muammar Gadaffi, his capture and murder; and the U.S. military involvement in Syria, a sovereign nation, in which the U.S. is involved in the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s government.

What did the three regimes have in common? Gaddafi and Assad have never really embraced the West and U.S. domination. Hussein, on the other hand, was our man, “our son of a bitch” in the Middle East. But Saddam began to have independent thoughts and so, had outlived his usefulness.

In the Ukraine, a sovereign nation, the U.S. has supported, with weapons and money, the overthrow of a democratically elected government friendly to Russia. After the successful coup, the U.S. helped install a NATO friendly government that includes a large number of neo-Nazis.

In Yemen, another sovereign nation, the U.S. has supported Saudi Arabia’s attack and bombing of that country, with weapons and money, creating a severe humanitarian crisis. Yemen is helpless to protect itself against the well-armed Saudis, thanks to the U.S. supply of advanced weaponry.

Let us not forget the U.S. drone program which includes the use of missiles and the murders of innocent civilians inside the boundaries of Pakistan, another sovereign nation.

Therefore, it is easy to see that national boundaries are not a deterrence to the U.S. agenda.

The PNAC document stated that we must overthrow all regimes that do not share our goals and values. Just exactly, what are our goals and values as a nation?

Simply stated, I would say that our values are to expand markets, increase profits, and rid ourselves of anyone who gets in the way by any means necessary.

That is why “our” president is pushing hard for the acceptance of the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), which most economists agree will result in the loss of thousands of jobs in the U.S. and give corporations more power than sovereign nations.

Barack Obama is a Democratic president, a member of the party that has seduced us into thinking they represent the working class. Yet, he has spent much political capital trying to get this treaty accepted. Would a Republican have done any differently?

Glen Ford refers to Obama, not as the lesser evil, but as the more effective evil. He is a good speaker, he is intelligent, he has a nice smile, he sings, he plays basketball, he has a nice family. What more could we ask of our president?

One thing would be to respect constitutional limits on his power. As a constitutional lawyer, I would expect him to be familiar with constitutional law. Another would be to withdraw U.S. aid to countries that deny human and civil rights to their citizens (Israel and Saudi Arabia). Another would be to initiate an independent investigation into 9-11, so that we may finally have revealed what really happened that day and who was behind this massive crime. Another would be to stop ignoring international laws.

Lastly, I would call upon this president to represent the people of this country rather than Wall Street and the banksters. If he can’t, he ought to admit that he, as president, does not really set the agenda for the United States (tongue in cheek). Such revelation at least would put things in perspective for the people that elections are nothing more than political theater, a time to convince us we live in a democratic society.

There is a history and a political agenda already in place and it doesn’t matter who occupies the White House, that agenda is primary for the success and perpetuation of capitalism and will be fulfilled. We are the pawns, here to serve the ruling class, to be used and exploited and then dismissed when our usefulness expires.

GOD BLESS AMERIKA!!!

Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.