Does the American Government Consider Economic Rivalry to Be A Justification For War?

American Government Threatened By All Who Question U.S. Military Hegemony

The influential Neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC) argued in 2000 that the U.S. should use military force to assure its military hegemony in the world. The Bush-Cheney wars in Iraq and elsewhere were largely based on PNAC’s arguments.

And Obama has promoted the same vision, and changed virtually nothing.

Economic Rivalry: A Basis for War?

Secretary of Defense (and former CIA head) Leon Panetta may have implied last week that Brazil, Russia, India and China (the “BRIC nations”) are a threat to the U.S. because they are doing well economically, while the U.S. isn’t doing so hot:

While terrorism remains a threat to national security, it is joined by cyber attacks, nuclear weapons capability and a number of rising powers among the world’s nations, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said in an interview broadcast last night.

***

“We also are living in a world in which there are rising powers, countries like China and Brazil and India, not to mention obviously Russia and others, that provide a challenge to us not only in trying to cooperate with them, but making sure that they don’t undermine the stability of the world,” he added.

Panetta said his role in meeting those threats is leading the Defense Department in effective national protection.

“It’s about being in charge of the services, our men and women in uniform who have to actually go out there and do the mission,” the secretary said.

Panetta’s statement could be read to imply that the U.S. is willing to use force – i.e. “men and women in uniform … to actually go out there and do the mission”, in order to provide “effective national protection” against the BRIC’s threat to “the stability of the world” … i.e. U.S. economic dominance.

Hopefully, we are misinterpreting his comments.

But the Iraq war was really about oil, according to Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer and others.

Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. (The government apparently planned the Afghanistan war, and most of our current military and intelligence policy, before 9/11 as well. See this, this and this).

So the government’s stated reasons for war may not hold much water.

And Ellen Brown argues in the Asia Times that middle eastern wars in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere stem from those countries’ leaders challenged the supremacy of the dollar and the Western banks:

Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland.

The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on Examiner.com, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.”

According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Libya – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar”, Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.

***

And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:

One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned … Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.

John Perkins largely agrees.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • larry payne

    “Does the American Government Consider Economic Rivalry to Be A Justification For War?”
    It was certainly enough justification for the U.S. to help build up Germany’s war machine in the 1930s.
    Standard Oil Company owned by the Rockefellers supplied Germany with the formulas for synthetic gasoline and synthetic rubber. U.S. banks such as Brown Harriman financed the German arms buildup. Wall Street’s original plan was for Germany to attack Russia, weakening both countries to the point the U.S. could emerge as the dominant world power. When the outcome of the war became in doubt and Churchill threatened to default on debts to the U.S., Pearl harbor conveniently drew us into the war. The plan worked for the half century the U.S. has been the dominant world power.

    It is not unreasonable to believe that a new plan is brewing to maintain that dominance.

  • http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/ Dredd

    The parent of wee the people considers any whining of any sort to be a valid cause for war, whether within the nation, or elsewhere in the world.

    And it is going to get worse.

  • George

    Everything that rises must converge. The debate isn’t US dominance in the 21st century it is who will replace them. I’m guessing that the BRIC’s not wanting war will introduce a new global currency and the power will be shared with each taking responsibility of there respective region with Africa’s resources being carved up. US still has some good years left in but the empire is collapsing. If it could happen to Rome it most definitely can happen in Washington. What the hell is wrong with the political system in the states. How do you pick such corrupt and dumb officials. How did America turn out this way.

  • Canuck

    “We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler. Therefore we couldn’t disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So we were forced to play our part in this diabolic scenario after the war. In no way we could have pointed out to our people that the war only was an economic preventive measure.” — US foreign minister James Baker (1992)

    Does the American Government Consider Economic Rivalry to Be A Justification For War?
    Absolutely!

  • popo

    Does economic rivalry provide a basis for war??? Is that a trick question? Let’s review:

    2000: Saddam Hussein morphs the UN’s oil for food program into an oil for Euros program — thereby threatening USD hegemony. Within 1 year, we invaded.

    2009: Redux. Moammar Khadaffi strives to unify oil sales under a single currency: The North African Gold Dinar — once again, threatening USD hegemony. Within 2 years, we invaded.

    Contrary to idiot gold-bugs who constantly proclaim that the USD is “backed by nothing”, the reality is the the USD is 100% backed by oil. And the relationship between oil and the USD is vigorously enforced by the most powerful military in history.

    Yes, we make war to protect our economic interests. War and our economic interests are inextricable.

  • Mark

    Why would you ask a question with an obvious answer?

 

 

Twitter