Edited by Gillian Palmer
The Never-Ending War
Published in Juventud Rebelde
(Cuba ) on 14 February 2012
by Juana Carrasco Martín (link to
original)
In the words of Barack Obama, the war ended in December 2011, when he allegedly withdrew all troops in combat; however, the real picture is harsher from what was virtually manipulated. In Iraq, on February 14, a car bomb exploded near a restaurant in Mosul and killed at least three people and wounded 20. Though the Pentagon budget shows a slight reduction of expenditure — laughably, at 0.9 percent, especially in the realm of staff and some arms purchases — other figures remain virtually unchanged, ultimately ensuring the empire’s war strategy.
In the reductions, the issue is a change in priorities, which now are targeting Asia-Pacific and the Middle East, thereby decreasing costs in the Americas, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. There is also a kind of castle of expenses, as the State Department, which supposedly creates diplomacy, looks now to put dollars into Iraq. Perhaps this would become part of the secret CIA budget, with special operations in the spotlight…
However, Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense, is begging Congress, as informed by EFE, to leave aside automatic budget cuts estimated at $500 million over 10 years, because he ensures that it will cause “serious damage” to his country’s military power. He was accompanied in that request by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey.
Anyone who hears this without paying much attention would believe the explanation and groans, but the Obama project for fiscal year 2013 would amount to $613.9 million if they add additional costs recognized by the two wars, with a large sum of $88.5 million for combat troops on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, because apparently they still have “to do something” there. The reality is that the U.S. military budget accounts for over 40 percent of military expenditures worldwide, and the U.S. does not give even a small step to show its power in that scenario.
Specifically, the Department of Defense still thinks $2.9 billion would be needed to cover the costs of post-operations in Iraq, as stated on Wired.com, so that the “transition would be completed.”
When new wars seem to be just around the corner, Panetta argues that the budget plan “represents a historic change for the future by recognizing that, after a decade of wars, we are in a strategic point.… The adjustments reflect strategic priorities that we have identified to protect the United States, as well in order to maintain the most powerful military influence in the world.”
In practice, the defense budget will not grow in the proportions that were calculated years ago, but it will continue to progress slowly over the next five years, little by little, unnoticeably and below what Panetta called “a disciplined use” of the money.
These new priorities and that discipline designate $10.4 billion to special forces; $3.8 billion or a little less for drones and unmanned aircraft; $3.4 billion for cyber defense; $9.7 billion for missile defense; $8 billion for space; and a substantial amount for aircraft carriers, destroyers, attack submarines and a future long-range bomber, among the “trifles.”
There’s nothing else to say; we will continue assisting the never-ending war.
In the reductions, the issue is a change in priorities, which now are targeting Asia-Pacific and the Middle East, thereby decreasing costs in the Americas, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. There is also a kind of castle of expenses, as the State Department, which supposedly creates diplomacy, looks now to put dollars into Iraq. Perhaps this would become part of the secret CIA budget, with special operations in the spotlight…
However, Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense, is begging Congress, as informed by EFE, to leave aside automatic budget cuts estimated at $500 million over 10 years, because he ensures that it will cause “serious damage” to his country’s military power. He was accompanied in that request by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey.
Anyone who hears this without paying much attention would believe the explanation and groans, but the Obama project for fiscal year 2013 would amount to $613.9 million if they add additional costs recognized by the two wars, with a large sum of $88.5 million for combat troops on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, because apparently they still have “to do something” there. The reality is that the U.S. military budget accounts for over 40 percent of military expenditures worldwide, and the U.S. does not give even a small step to show its power in that scenario.
Specifically, the Department of Defense still thinks $2.9 billion would be needed to cover the costs of post-operations in Iraq, as stated on Wired.com, so that the “transition would be completed.”
When new wars seem to be just around the corner, Panetta argues that the budget plan “represents a historic change for the future by recognizing that, after a decade of wars, we are in a strategic point.… The adjustments reflect strategic priorities that we have identified to protect the United States, as well in order to maintain the most powerful military influence in the world.”
In practice, the defense budget will not grow in the proportions that were calculated years ago, but it will continue to progress slowly over the next five years, little by little, unnoticeably and below what Panetta called “a disciplined use” of the money.
These new priorities and that discipline designate $10.4 billion to special forces; $3.8 billion or a little less for drones and unmanned aircraft; $3.4 billion for cyber defense; $9.7 billion for missile defense; $8 billion for space; and a substantial amount for aircraft carriers, destroyers, attack submarines and a future long-range bomber, among the “trifles.”
There’s nothing else to say; we will continue assisting the never-ending war.
Previous article![]( "Liberal Communism")
