Two centuries after the War of 1812, the
Canadian government sought to commemorate the “fact” that Canada had thwarted
the invasion of troops of the American republics to the south. “Two hundred years ago, the United States
invaded our territory,” a narrator says over dark images and ominous music in
the government’s ad. “But we defended our land; we stood side by side and won
the fight for Canada.” However, the New
York Timespoints out that “because Canada did not become a nation until
1867, the War of 1812 was actually a battle between the young United States and
Britain.” The fight was not for Canada because the British troops were fighting for the British empire rather than for colonies in what is now Canada.
The British are coming! A British hero in "Upper Canada." rpsc.org The real question is why the young American
empire sought to take on the British empire--an empire within taking on the seat of the larger empire (as if an empire, the United Colonies,being in an empire makes sense and is durable). The full essay is at "Empires vs. Kingdoms" See also, British Colonies Forge an American Empire, by Skip Worden.
The publication of portions of the Pentagon Papers despite President Nixon’s threats of treason highlighted the fact that four presidents successively lied to the American People on build-up of U.S. involvement in Indochina (most notably, Vietnam) and the Nixon administration lied on the prospects for victory in the Vietnam War—a war that had not even been declared by Congress. Clearly, democratic accountable extends to foreign policy at least in broad outline, such as in whether or not to continue an active engagement militarily in another region of the world. Even in U.S. presidents being able to get away with effectively declaring war even as one of their roles is that of commander-in-chief—a huge conflict of interest!—democratic accountability by the popular sovereign, the People—is important, even vital should the legislative and judicial branches fail as checks in the separation-of-powers feature of the U.S. Constitution.
As the U.S. Government faced down its own deadline in 2012 before
the Bush tax cuts would expire and across-the-board budget cuts would commence,
the Federal Reserve, which had been struggling to prop up the economy by buying
bonds and keeping interest rates low, would, according to the Chairman, Ben
Bernanke, be largely powerless to do more in the face of a recessionary policy
on taxes and spending. "We cannot offset the full impact of the fiscal
cliff," he said of the Fed. "It's just too big." That he had
written a doctoral dissertation on the Great Depression and had specialized on
it as a professor at Princeton lends a lot of weight to his judgment on the
matter. However, he had also managed to be re-appointed to the Fed and thus
knew how to play the game. In the case of the automatic budget cuts, major
power-brokers, specifically in the military industrial complex, had a lot
riding on Congress and the White House making a deal that would obviate the
cuts in defense spending. The chairman of the Fed could have been carrying
their water.
Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, in front of the lights. Reuters
In the midst of the talks in Washington in 2012 to avoid the so-called fiscal “cliff” with a bipartisan deal, the Wall Street Journal reported that David Cote, the CEO of Honeywell, a $48 billion “industrial giant,” was at the time “the business executive most in the middle of the fiscal-cliff debate.” The Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) said, "People on both sides of the aisle are sending messages through Dave. He's become an active participant.” For a sitting CEO to have ensconced himself so deeply among the power-players in Washington did not come controversy-free. Even though his company had a vested interest that a deal be reached, the matter of his involvement raises larger implications, positive as well as negative.
David Cote, CEO of Honeywell. Civic duty or getting "his people" back in line in Washington? Bloomberg News
Friday, August 16, 2013: A day of anger as proclaimed by
Morsi supporters in Egypt. A day of death and carnage. A day of intransigence on
both sides. Just a day earlier, the U.S. government had cancelled planned joint
military exercises. Besides being largely symbolic rather than real sanction,
the exercises were due to be downsized anyway due to the ongoing,
across-the-board, sequester of the U.S. Government’s budget. Can something so
convenient be counted as even “sending a signal?” Meanwhile, American foreign
aid to Egypt, $1.3 billion—second only to what the U.S. gives Israel—continued,
as if there were no sequester. As a direct result of the financial complicity,
thousands of protesters in Turkey were shouting anti-American slogans. The
protesters were so well informed that they were protesting the decision of the
Obama administration not even to decide whether there had been a coup in Egypt
when the military deposed Morsi. Turkey had emerged as one of the fiercest critics
of what it has called an “unacceptable coup.”[1]
It is not as though the American aid gives the U.S. much
leverage with the Egyptian military; aid from Middle East states, including
Saudi Arabia (whose statement on the Day of Rage voiced support for the
military), dwarfs that of the United States. Meanwhile, the U.S. Government,
fearful of something worse (for the U.S.) in Egypt than its military, was not
fooling the Turks or the rest of the world. The sad truth is that Americans
could be harmed as a direct result of their government’s attempt to hold onto
whatever leverage existed.
The Egyptian military's "No Tolerance" in action on the Day of Rage. AP/Hassan Ammar
It is not as though cutting off foreign aid to Egypt would
be so “radical” that the option was not realistic. On the Day of Rage, Germany,
ein Land—wirklich Staat—auf die Europäische
Union, suspended $25 million in aid to Egypt for climate and environmental
protection projects.[2] Meanwhile,
Germany, Egypt’s largest trading partner, joined with the French Government in
calling for a federal response from the E.U.’s Council of Ministers and
presumably the E.U.’s Foreign Minister. Indeed, one of the reasons for creating
the E.U. had been that the states would have more influence togetherthan separately. The states’ rights
ideology was yet again obstructing Europe from attaining that goal.
I suspect that the difference in the respective reactions of
the E.U. and U.S. with respect to foreign aid have to do with the power of the
Israeli lobby being greater in the U.S. than the E.U. The U.S. Government was
thus vulnerable to the accusation of hypocrisy on its democratic principles out
of a rather obsessive concern for Israel’s safety. Had both unions withheld
both foreign aid and trade with Egypt, the question would be whether the
foreign aid from within the Middle East would be sufficient to sustain the
Egyptian military in power. Ich weiß es leider
nicht. At any rate, it is unfortunate that democracy and human rights can
be so eclipsed by politics in the U.S. and even the E.U., the latter behaving
as though it had one arm tied behind its back.
"The most significant threat to our national security is our debt."
Micheal Mullen, Jount Chiefs of Staff Chairman, August, 2010.
The defense budget in 2010--$664 billion (not counting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars)--equalled that of the rest of the world combined. One dollar of every five spent by the U.S. Government was for defense. The amount spent represents 80% growth since 2000. Why? One reason: the big weapon systems oriented to fighting other empires (e.g., Russia and China). For example, $600 million for the littoral combat ship and $13 billion for amphibious landing vehicles (whose purpose has even been questioned by Sec. of Defense William Gates). It would seem that the military contractors--the military industrial complex, moreover--are firmly entrenched and in control. That is to say, the defense spending is indicative of the influence of big business over government in the United States. That this influence goes unhampered may tell us something about the leanings of our societal norms.
The British are coming! A British hero in "Upper Canada." rpsc.org
