US Military Suicides at New Record High

Apparently US foreign imperial policies have been countenanced with an internal blowback (which I earlier called this as the enemy from within) through continuing record rates of military suicides. 

From PressTV

US troop suicides are still maintaining high levels despite years of tracking the effects of mental trauma on soldiers.

With 2012 coming to an end. US officials report that the Army and Navy are already reporting record numbers of suicides.

Similar record numbers are being recorded in the Air Force and Marine Corps--making 2012 the worst year for military suicides since diligent tracking began in 2001. The traumatic effects are war are lasting say experts.

As researchers study the causes of suicides in the military, doctors are evaluating the ratio of suicide rates and frequent deployments.

According to latest estimates, suicides are happening faster than the rate of one per day. Last week, suicides among active military personnel reached 323, breaking the Pentagon's previous high of 310 suicides set in 2009.

Wars have torturous psychological and emotional impact on individuals. Being distant from families can be part of such anguish. However more important is that of the trauma from combat violence. This can bring about the deeply rooted Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); common symptoms of which are “combat fatigue” or “shell shock”, that may lead to depression and subsequent suicides. Otherwise, traumatic war experiences could morph into health issues which may exacerbate mental disease that also leads to risks of suicides.

Politicians hardly care about this though. As they relentlessly pursue interventionists policies that always leads to war. It’s not their lives at stake anyway. Besides, wars have always served as justifications for expanding political and economic control over society, which is why the incessant propaganda, abetted by the mainstream media, on nationalism.

As economist Dr. Antony Mueller recently commented,

Clausewitz wrote that war is politics with other means. I say that war is the quintessence of politics. All politics leads to war. War is the ultimate fulfillment of politics. In order to abolish war we must abolish politics. The question is how.

How the US Government Spends Money

When government lavishes away the economy’s scarce and valuable resources through the acquisition of unsustainable levels of debt for the benefit or for the interests of the political class and their cronies, then social entropy should be expected based on the predominant trend of unproductive and wealth consuming activities.

Below are excerpts on the “55 facts about the debt and U.S. government finances” from the Economic Collapse Blog 

#1 While Barack Obama has been president, the U.S. government has spent about 11 dollars for every 7 dollars of revenue that it has actually brought in. 

#2 During the fiscal year that just ended, the U.S. government took in 2.449 trillion dollars but it spent 3.538 trillion dollars. 

#3 During fiscal year 2011, over a trillion dollars of government money was spent on 83 different welfare programs, and those numbers do not even include Social Security or Medicare. 

#4 Over the past four years, welfare spending has increased by 32 percent.  In inflation-adjusted dollars, spending on those programs has risen by 378 percent over the past 30 years.  At this point, more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government.  Once again, these figures do not even include Social Security or Medicare. 

#5 Over the past year, the number of Americans getting a free cell phone from the federal government has grown by 43 percent.  Now more than 16 million Americans are enjoying what has come to be known as an "Obamaphone". 

#6 When Barack Obama first entered the White House, about 32 million Americans were on food stamps.  Now, nearly 47 million Americans are on food stamps.  And this has happened during what Obama refers to as "an economic recovery". 

#7 The U.S. government recently spent 27 million dollars on pottery classes in Morocco. 

#8 The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently spent $300,000 to encourage Americans to eat caviar at a time when more families than ever are having a really hard time just trying to put any food on the table at all…. 

#19 The U.S. government spends more on the military than China, Russia, Japan, India, and the rest of NATO combined.  In fact, the United States accounts for 41.0% of all military spending on the planet.  China is next with only 8.2%. 

#20 In a previous article, I noted that close to 500,000 federal employees now make at least $100,000 a year. 

#21 In 2006, only 12 percent of all federal workers made $100,000 or more per year.  Now, approximately 22 percent of all federal workers do…. 

#32 When you combine all federal government spending, all state government spending and all local government spending, it comes to approximately 41 percent of U.S. GDP.  But don't worry, all of our politicians insist that this is not socialism. 

#33 As I have written about previously, less than 30 percent of all Americans lived in a home where at least one person received financial assistance from the federal government back in 1983.  Today, that number is sitting at an all-time high of 49 percent. 

#34 Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for just 32 percent of all health care spending in America.  This year, it is being projected that the federal government will account for more than 50 percent of all health care spending in the United States. 

#35 The number of Americans on Medicaid soared from 34 million in 2000 to 54 million in 2011, and it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls… 

#36 In one of my previous articles, I discussed how it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025. 

#37 If you can believe it, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years.  That comes to approximately $328,404 for each and every household in the United States. 

#38 In the United States today, more than 61 million Americans receive some form of Social Security benefits.  By 2035, that number is projected to soar to a whopping91 million. 

#39 Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years. 

#40 When Barack Obama first took office, the U.S. national debt was about 10.6 trillion dollars.  Now it is about 16.2 trillion dollars.  That is an increase of 5.6 trillion dollars in less than 4 years… 

#55 Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff is warning that the U.S. government is facing a gigantic tsunami of unfunded liabilities in the coming years that we are counting on our children and our grandchildren to pay.  Kotlikoff speaks of a "fiscal gap" which he defines as "the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue".  His calculations have led him to the conclusion that the federal government is facing a fiscal gap of 222 trillion dollars in the years ahead.

Read the rest here

As the illustrious economist the late Milton Friedman once said, If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.

Quote of the Day: Dancing on the Grave of Keynesianism

From author Gary North at the Mises Institute:

The Keynesians seem to be dominant today. They are dominant because they have been brought into the hierarchy of political power. They serve as court prophets to the equivalent of the Babylonians, just before the Medo-Persians took the nation.

They are in charge of the major academic institutions. They are the main advisers in the federal government. They are the overwhelmingly dominant faction within the Federal Reserve System. Their only major institutional opponents are the monetarists, and the monetarists are as committed to fiat money as the Keynesians are. They hate the idea of a gold-coin standard. They hate the idea of market-produced money….

The welfare-warfare state, Keynesian economics, and the Council on Foreign Relations are going to suffer major defeats when the economic system finally goes down. The system will go down. It is not clear what will pull the trigger, but it is obvious that the banking system is fragile, and the only thing capable of bailing it out is fiat money. The system is sapping the productivity of the nation, because the Federal Reserve's purchases of debt are siphoning productivity and capital out of the private sector and into those sectors subsidized by the federal government…

I offer this optimistic assessment: the bad guys are going to lose. Their statist policies will bring destruction that they will not be able to explain away. Their plea will be rejected. "Give us more time. We just need a little more time. We can fix this if you let us get deeper into your wallets."

In the very long run, the good guys are going to win, but in the interim, there is going to be a lot of competition to see which group gets to dance on the grave of the Keynesian system.

Get out your dancing shoes. Keep them polished. Our day is coming.

US Drone Warfare Fuels Arabic and Islamic Hatred

One of the main reasons why there has been too much vile and hatred against Americans in the Muslim world has been because of the imperialist-interventionist-militant foreign policies adapted by the US government influenced by the military industrial complex and the imperial goals of the politically entrenched neoconservatives.

One such evidence is the rampant use by the US military of drones to supposedly weed out terrorists. Such actions in reality defies the 3D policies (Development, Diplomacy and Defense), framed by Secretary of State and former first lady Hilary Clinton

As Professor Bill Easterly of the NYU in a recent blog writes,

Hilary Clinton said a while ago that Defense and Development were complements.

Not so much. A new report from Stanford and NYU (see excellent summary in the Guardian) found that US drone strikes (greatly increased under this administration) in Pakistan were killing and terrorizing civilians, while very few killed their terrorist targets.

It would be hard for Development to benefit from “drones hovering 24 hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning.”

The report alleges that drones strike areas multiple times, killing rescuers of victims of the first strike.

Such gruesome violation of human rights which masquerades as the war on terror will exacerbate geopolitical tensions instead of solving them

Yet the best way to promote peace is through trade.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano recently pointed out,

Is it not more likely that when the West supported toppling Arab strongmen, the rioters in the streets saw that as a signal to express hatred toward the meddling West? Might Obama’s drones, which have fallen all over the Middle East killing innocents in schools and hospitals, at weddings and funerals, and demolishing mosques and homes, be coming back to haunt him?

The Arab Spring has become the Western Winter, brought about by two American presidents who thought they could kill without moral justification or painful consequence. We should come home from these barbaric places and leave them alone. We should trade with them, since they want to buy our iPads and washing machines and blue jeans, but let them run their own governments.

Yet another emerging problem has been the escalating anxiety over the overbearing use of drones against Americans in their homeland—another sign of America’s transition towards a police state. These are symptoms of the growing desperation of the ruling class.

Senkaku Islands Dispute: Chinese Government Behind Anti-Japan Protest

It seems that the Chinese government may have a hand in the agitation, mobilization and organization of the nationwide protest against the Japanese over the disputed Senkaku Islands.

From the LA Times,

The last week's anti-Japan demonstrations in China have been a spectacular display of just how easily the ruling Communist Party can harness the power of protest.

In the aftermath of nationwide protests, in which mobs trashed Japanese-owned businesses and set fire to Japanese model cars, critics are questioning the degree to which the Chinese government fanned the flames as part of its dispute with Japan over an island chain both nations claim.

"It is obvious that this was planned," said Ai Weiwei, the dissident artist, who videotaped some of the protests. The 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square were "the last time that the people themselves organized a real protest and then the government sent in tanks to crush them," he said.

Although there has been no evidence that police officers participated in the violence, in many cities they directed the public on where to protest and cleared streets to allow tens of thousands to mass. Many protesters interviewed Tuesday said they had been given the day off by employers to demonstrate. Sept. 18 is a traditional day of protest, marking the anniversary of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.

These organized demonstrations, which in the Philippines is known as the “hakot” crowd, as I previously pointed out have merely been camouflages.

In reality these are most likely smokescreens to the worsening internal problems experienced by both countries and to the mounting interventionism being applied by the increasingly desperate political authorities.

The war rhetoric, expressed through nationalism, has been used to divert people’s attention, to suppress political opposition and to justify inflationism, as well as other interventionists measures being imposed on China and Japan's economy. 

Inflationism and the Senkaku Islands Dispute

At the Minyanville Jonah Loeb postulates 5 factors behind the intensifying Senkaku Island dispute between Japan and China, particularly history, resources (vast oil reserves), economic stakes, provocation by both governments and impact on US presidential elections.

First below is the an abbreviated timeline of the Senkaku Dispute, the complete timeline can be seen at the Globe and Mail here

-1996: The nationalist group builds another lighthouse on another of the islands. Several activists from Hong Kong dive into waters off the islands on a protest journey. One of them drowns.

- 2002: The Japanese ministry of internal affairs starts renting three of the four Kurihara-owned islands. The other is rented by the defence ministry.

- 2004: A group of Chinese activists lands on one of the disputed islands. The then prime minister Junichiro Koizumi orders their deportation after two days.

- September, 2010: A Chinese fishing boat rams two Japanese coastguard patrol boats off the islands. Its captain is arrested but freed around two weeks later amid a heated diplomatic row that affects trade and political ties.

- April 16, 2012: Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara announces he has reached a basic agreement to buy the Kurihara-owned islands.

- July 7, 2012: Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda says his government is considering buying the islands.

- August 15, 2012: Japanese police arrest 14 pro-China activists, five of them on one of the islands.

- August 17, 2012: All 14 are deported.

- August 19, 2012: Japanese nationalists land on the islands without permission.

It is important to point out the current geopolitical troubles on Senkaku essentially got resurrected in 2010-2012 when Japan’s fragile post-Lehman economy got slammed by the triple whammy natural disaster (earthquake, tsunami and nuclear power meltdown) and as China’s economy has turned south in response to the diminishing returns of the 2008-2009 stimulus as shield to the post Lehman crisis.

Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan has resorted to ever increasing amounts of quantitative easing to save the beleaguered crony banking and finance, the nuclear industry and other zombie crony firms.

Yet like the Scarborough-Spratly’s island dispute I do not believe that this has been about history nor has this been about resources, but both ideas have been peddled as popular rationalizations for the standoff.

Jonah Loeb writes,

4. Both countries' governments are being provocative. Tokyo Governor Shoharo Ishihara, an outspoken character with a long history of anti-Chinese comments, sparked the dispute by launching a public fundraiser to buy the islands from their private owners, forcing the Japanese government’s hand as China fought back against Ishihara’s bid…

5. It could have a major effect on the US presidential race. More and more American politicians, especially those on the right, have been spinning some pretty harsh anti-Chinese rhetoric for a while, and that’s only increased since this dispute started. Mitt Romney claims that he will declare China a “currency manipulator” if he’s elected, and China is therefore as suspicious of the United States as it is angry at Japan.

It is true that politicians have been stoking inflammatory statements; a Chinese general recently said that China’s military should “prepare for combat”.

In reality these are most likely smokescreens to the worsening internal problems experienced by both countries and to the mounting interventionism being applied by the increasingly desperate political authorities.

In a speech Professor Joseph T. Salerno made this very important point. (bold highlights mine)

War has a number of advantages for the ruling class. First and foremost, war against a foreign enemy obscures the class conflict that is going on domestically in which the minority ruling class coercively siphons off the resources and lowers the living standards of the majority of the population, who produce and pay taxes. Convinced that their lives and property are being secured against a foreign threat, the exploited taxpayers develop a "false consciousness" of political and economic solidarity with their domestic rulers…

The war rhetoric have been used as opportunity to deflect public opinions to a foreign bogeyman as greater interventionism are being applied to the economy

Again from Professor Salerno

A second advantage of war is that it provides the ruling class with an extraordinary opportunity to intensify its economic exploitation of the domestic producers through emergency war taxes, monetary inflation, conscripted labor, and the like. The productive class generally succumbs to these increased depredations on its income and wealth with some grumbling but little real resistance because it is persuaded that its interests are one with the war makers.

The point being:

We thus arrive at a universal, praxeological truth about war. War is the outcome of class conflict inherent in the political relationship — the relationship between ruler and ruled, parasite and producer, tax-consumer and taxpayer. The parasitic class makes war with purpose and deliberation in order to conceal and ratchet up their exploitation of the much larger productive class. It may also resort to war making to suppress growing dissension among members of the productive class (libertarians, anarchists, etc.) who have become aware of the fundamentally exploitative nature of the political relationship and become a greater threat to propagate this insight to the masses as the means of communication become cheaper and more accessible, e.g., desktop publishing, AM radio, cable television, the Internet, etc. Furthermore, the conflict between ruler and ruled is a permanent condition. This truth is reflected — perhaps half consciously — in the old saying that equates death and taxes as the two unavoidable features of the human condition.

This leads us to central banking inflationism. Today’s interventionism has become more pronounced through central bank inflationism. And war financing has intrinsically been tied with inflationism.

As Mises Institute's founder Lew Rockwell recently wrote

Through this convoluted process – a process, not coincidentally, that the general public is unlikely to know about or understand – the federal government is in fact able to do the equivalent of printing money and spending it. While everyone else has to acquire resources by spending money they earned in a productive enterprise – in other words, they first have to produce something for society, and then they may consume – government may acquire resources without first having produced anything. Money creation via government monopoly thus becomes another mechanism whereby the exploitative relationship between government and the public is perpetuated.

Now because the central bank allows the government to conceal the cost of everything it does, it provides an incentive for governments to engage in additional spending in all kinds of areas, not just war. But because war is enormously expensive and because the sacrifices that accompany it place such a strain on the public, it is wartime expenditures for which the assistance of the central bank is especially welcome for any government.

In short war gives political cover for authorities to inflate the system.

Of course, again as I previously argued, the territorial disputes could be used as an election campaign propaganda.

War has always been used as opportunities to exploit society (through financial repression) and suppress internal political opposition in order to advance the interests of the ruling political class whose interest are interlinked with the politically favored banking class, the welfare and the warfare class.

The Senkaku Island dispute has been no different.

Gary North: The Keynesian Era is Coming to a Close

Author and Professor Gary North talks about how the Keynesian political economic system via the welfare-warfare state, like Marxism, is bound for doom.

I say this to give you hope. The Keynesians seem to be dominant today. They are dominant because they have been brought into the hierarchy of political power. They serve as court prophets to the equivalent of the Babylonians, just before the Medo-Persians took the nation.

They are in charge of the major academic institutions. They are the main advisors in the federal government. They are the overwhelmingly dominant faction within the Federal Reserve System. Their only major institutional opponents are the monetarists, and the monetarists are as committed to fiat money as the Keynesians are. They hate the idea of a gold coin standard. They hate the idea of market-produced money.

There was no overwhelming outrage among staff economists at the Federal Reserve when Ben Bernanke and the Federal Open Market Committee cranked up the monetary base from $900,000,000,000 to $1.7 trillion in late 2008, and then cranked it up to $2.7 trillion by the middle of 2011. This expansion of the money supply had no foundation whatsoever in anybody's theory of economics. It was totally an ad hoc decision. It was a desperate FOMC trying to keep the system from collapsing, or least they thought it was about to collapse. The evidence for that is questionable. But, in any case, they cranked up the monetary base, and nobody in the academic community except a handful of Austrians complained that this was a complete betrayal of the monetary system and out of alignment with any theory of economics.

The Keynesians are eventually going to face what the Marxists have faced since 1991. Literally within months of the collapse of the Soviet Union, when members of the Communist Party simply folded up shop and stole the money that was inside the Communist Party coffers, any respect for Marxism disappeared within academia. Marxism became a laughingstock. Nobody except English professors, a handful of old tenured political scientists, and a tiny handful of economists in the Union of Radical Political Economists (URPE), were still willing to admit in late 1992 that they were advocates of Marxism, and that they had been in favor of Soviet economic planning. They became pariahs overnight. That was because academia, then as now, is committed to power. If you appear to have power, you will get praised by academia, but when you lose power, you will be tossed into what Trotsky called the ashcan of history.

This is going to happen to the Keynesians as surely as it happened to the Marxists. The Keynesians basically got a free ride, and have for over 60 years. Their system is illogical. It is incoherent. Students taking undergraduate courses in economics never really remember the categories. That is because they are illogical categories. They all rest on the idea that government spending can goose the economy, but they cannot explain how it is that the government gets its hands on the money to do the stimulative spending without at the same time reducing spending in the private sector. The government has to steal money to boost the economy, but this means that the money that is stolen from the private sector is removed as a source of economic growth.

The Keynesian economic system makes no sense. But, decade after decade, the Keynesians get away with utter nonsense. None of their peers will ever call them to account. They go merrily down the mixed economy road, as if that road were not leading to a day of economic destruction. They are just like Marxist economists and academics in 1960, 1970, and 1980. They are oblivious to the fact that they are going over the cliff with the debt-ridden, over-leveraged Western economy, because they are committed in the name of Keynesian theory to the fractional reserve banking system, which cannot be sustained either theoretically or practically.

The problem we are going to face at some point as a nation and in fact as a civilization is this: there is no well-developed economic theory inside the corridors of power that will explain to the administrators of a failed system what they should do after the system collapses. This was true in the Eastern bloc in 1991. There was no plan of action, no program of institutional reform. This is true in banking. This is true in politics. This is true in every aspect of the welfare-warfare state. The people at the top are going to be presiding over a complete disaster, and they will not be able to admit to themselves or anybody else that their system is what produced the disaster. So, they will not make fundamental changes. They will not restructure the system, by decentralizing power, and by drastically reducing government spending. They will be forced to decentralize by the collapsed capital markets.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, academics in the West could not explain why. They could not explain what inherently forced the complete collapse of the Soviet economy, nor could they explain why nobody in their camp had seen it coming. Judy Shelton did, but very late: in 1989. Nobody else had seen it coming, because the non-Austrian academic world rejected Mises's theory of socialist economic calculation. Everything in their system was against acknowledging the truth of Mises's criticisms, because he was equally critical about central banking, Keynesian economics, and the welfare state. They could not accept his criticism of Communism precisely because he used the same arguments against them.

The West could not take advantage of the collapse of the Soviet Union, precisely because it had gone Keynesian rather than Austrian. The West was as compromised with Keynesian mixed economic planning, both in theory and in practice, as the Soviets had been compromised with Marx. So, there was great praise of the West's welfare state and democracy as the victorious system, when there should have been praise of Austrian economics. There was no realization that the West's fiat money economy is heading down the same bumpy road that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It was not a victory for the West, except insofar as Reagan had expanded spending on the military, and the Soviets stupidly attempted to match this expenditure. That finally "broke the bank" in the Soviet Union. The country was so poverty-stricken that it did not have the capital reserves efficient to match the United States. When its surrogate client state, Iraq, was completely defeated in the 1991 Iraq war, the self-confidence inside the Soviet military simply collapsed. This had followed the devastating psychological defeat of the retreat of the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan in 1989. Those two defeats, coupled with the domestic economic bankruptcy of the country, led to the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The present value of the unfunded liabilities of the American welfare state, totaling over $200 trillion today, shows where this nation's Keynesian government is headed: to default. It is also trapped in the quagmire of Afghanistan. The government will pull out at some point in this decade. This will not have the same psychological effect that it did on the Soviet Union, because we are not a total military state. But it will still be a defeat, and the stupidity of the whole operation would be visible to everybody. The only politician who will get any benefit out of this is Ron Paul. He was wise enough to oppose the entire operation in 2001, and he was the only national figure who did. There were others who voted against it, but nobody got the publicity that he did. Nobody else had a system of foreign-policy which justified staying out. His opposition was not a pragmatic issue; it was philosophical.

The welfare-warfare state, Keynesian economics, and the Council on Foreign Relations are going to suffer major defeats when the economic system finally goes down. The system will go down. It is not clear what will pull the trigger, but it is obvious that the banking system is fragile, and the only thing capable of bailing it out is fiat money. The system is sapping the productivity of the nation, because the Federal Reserve's purchases of debt are siphoning productivity and capital out of the private sector and into those sectors subsidized by the federal government.

Read the rest here.

The Enemy from Within: Afghan Forces Turning Against Their U.S. Trainers

Wars spawn their own monsters.

Aside from growing numbers of suicides within the US Army, in the Afghan war, Afghan forces have reportedly been turning against their US benefactors.

Writes the pro-war conservative Heritage Foundation,

American troops in Afghanistan face an increased threat from “insider” attacks in which the Afghan forces they are there to help and train are turning their guns on their American partners, raising serious questions about the viability of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

The attacks, which have killed 40 U.S. and NATO troops so far this year, are also referred to as “green-on-blue attacks,” because the military refers to local forces as “green” and allied forces as “blue.”*

Who are the Afghan security forces? While the Afghan Army leaders are professional and committed to working with their American counterparts, the recruits are mostly rural, illiterate men who can become disgruntled by cultural differences with their American trainers or susceptible to insurgent bribes or intimidation. U.S. military officials attribute only about 10 percent of the insider attacks to Taliban infiltration, despite Taliban claims of responsibility for most of the attacks.

There are about 350,000 Afghan security forces, including the police and army. As of October 1, there will be 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is centered on being able to train the Afghan forces so they can eventually face down the insurgent threat on their own. If the number of insider attacks does not abate, it will be increasingly difficult to justify a large-scale U.S. troop presence in the nation.

The backlash from US Imperial policies has been intensifying.

As a side note, here is an interesting social media video of US troops in Afghanistan doing a “call me maybe”. (hat tip from cbsnews.com)

Well this is just one of the explosive “call me maybe” videos, you can see more here.

Ironically, the New York Times decries such viral effects of social media as “the music industry itself, has been upended by social media”. This logic has it backwards, the Carly Rae Jepsen “call me maybe” phenomenon became a "viral" hit because of social media. I wouldn’t be listening to her music if not for these amazing videos. [My daughter and her classmates even made one]

US Military Suicides: The Enemy from Within

Fighting needless wars and playing the role of the global policeman to fulfill the political and financial goals of neocon politics and the military industrial complex has apparently been taking a heavy mental toll on US military personnel

From Yahoo/Reuters

Twenty-six active-duty soldiers are believed to have committed suicide in July, more than double the number reported for June and the most suicides ever recorded in a month since the U.S. Army began tracking detailed statistics on such deaths.

During the first seven months of this year, there were 116 suspected suicides among active-duty soldiers, compared to 165 suicides for all of last year, the Army said. The military branch reported 12 likely suicides during June.

The monthly totals for 2012 include confirmed suicides and cases still under investigation, the Army said.

Twelve reserve soldiers who were not on active duty also appear to have killed themselves in July, bringing the yearly total for that group to 71 suicides.

The Army, which has collected in-depth monthly suicide data since January 2009, confirmed 118 suicides among members of the branch's National Guard and Reserve components in 2011.

"Suicide is the toughest enemy I have faced in my 37 years in the Army," General Lloyd J. Austin III, vice chief of staff of the Army, said in the report released on Thursday.

The above data affirms what seems to be an escalating trend.

As Congressman Ron Paul wrote last May,

Unfortunately, when presidents misuse our military on an unprecedented scale – and Congress lets them get away with it – the resulting stress causes military suicides to increase dramatically, both among active duty and retired service members. In fact, military deaths from suicide far outnumber combat deaths. According to an article in the Air Force Times this month, suicides among airmen are up 40 percent over last year.

This seems even a greater threat than the external enemies the US government has spawned or has been waging war against as the enemy has emerged from within: the loss of moral fiber (strength of character or firmness of purpose-dictionary.com)

This backlash from imperialist US foreign policies has not just been impairing the mental health of the US military but can likewise be observed in the developing “road to serfdom” political economic trends of the US (see links here, here and here).

All these seems ominous to a quote widely attributed to Soviet Union Premier Joseph Stalin but has been disputed by snopes.com

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

Do We Need Central Banks?

Tim Price at the Sovereign Man asks why the need for a central bank? (bold emphasis original)

A typical if feeble answer is that we need a lender of last resort. To which the answer is… Why? Why do we need a government-appointed entity to support banks that get in over their heads?

A typical answer is that if our banks start failing, our society starts going down the toilet. (It already has, but never mind.)

So now we have the worst of all possible worlds. Our banks are already failing, in the sense of no longer functioning according to the principles of offering an economic rate to depositors and offering economic funding to borrowers.

Plus, now we have ended up with a handful of quasi-nationalised banking group zombies that appear to be being run for the sole purpose of being granted dollops of money that they are free to hoard whenever the central bank deems it appropriate to depreciate our currencies some more.

If our banks were free to fail, a) we would have no need of a central bank, and b) we would have no need for banking guarantees.

Banking deposit agreements would simply come with a giant ‘Caveat Emptor’ on them, and depositors might be able to start earning a positive real interest rate on their savings again.

Abolishing central banks and their core functions would have the happy and non-trivial side effect of reintroducing something akin to sound money into the world economy, rather than live with permanent inflation and have the entire economy held hostage by banking interests.

In reality central banks exists as backstop financiers to the welfare-warfare state. For instance, wars has been facilitated and enabled by the existence of central banks.

Professor Gary North explains

The sinews of war are strengthened by central banking. This is why textbooks praise the Bank of England. It let the British fight longer wars and more destructive wars. The message: get a central bank for your nation, so that your politicians can declare war more readily and stay in that war far longer.

Central banks signify as central planning and the politicization of money. They are part of the 10 planks of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Yes it's a delusion to equate capitalism with 'communist' central banking.

Central banks also promote the interests of the banking and political class at the expense of society through inflationism which not only causes boom bust cycles, but importantly has been diminishing the purchasing power of our currencies. This why a huge amount of the public’s resources have been funneled to insolvent “zombie” banks and bankrupt states.

And this is why once zombie institutions become desperate they resort to other measures of financial repression and take the political route towards despotism. And this is also why the private sector will always become the scapegoat for policy errors. That's until people don't understand the essence of central banking.

Yes, I agree Mr. Price, we need the de-politicization of money or the return to sound money through the free markets.

End the Fed. End all central banking.

Quote of the Day: War Equals Presidential Greatness

Our data analysis suggests that wars in which a large percentage of the U.S. population is killed will, all other things equal, cause historians to judge as great a president on whose watch those wars occurred. Certainly, this was the perception of presidents Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. It was probably also the perception of other presidents.

This conclusion is troubling. Most presidents, after all, probably want to be thought of as great. When they spend resources on war, they are spending almost entirely other peoples money and lives. They get little credit for avoiding war. Martin Van Buren, for example, effectively avoided a war on the northern border of the United States. How many people know that today?
Indeed, how many people have even heard of Martin Van Buren?

Woodrow Wilson, by contrast, inserted the United States into World War I. That was a war that the United States could easily have avoided. Moreover, had the U.S. government avoided World War I, the treaty that ended the war would not likely have been so lopsided. The Versailles Treaty`s punitive terms on Germany, as Keynes predicted in 1919, helped set the stage for WorldWar II.

So it is reasonable to think that had the United States not entered World War I, there might not have been a World War II. Yet, despite his major blunder and more likely, because of his major blunder, which caused over 100,000 Americans to die in World War I, Wilson is often thought of as a great president.

The danger is that modern presidents understand these incentives. Those who want peace should take historians` ratings of presidents seriously. Beyond that, we should stop celebrating, and try to persuade historians to stop celebrating, presidents who made unnecessary wars. One way to do so is to remember the unseen: the war that didn`t happen, the war that was avoided, and the peace and prosperity that resulted. If we applied this standard, then presidents Martin van Buren, John Tyler, Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge, to name four, would get a substantially higher rating than they are usually given.

That’s from a paper by Professors David Henderson and Zachary Gochenour.

Seeing greatness in war or destruction is an example of the public’s misconceived glorification of the state, which has mostly been a product of indoctrination and political propaganda.

War, according to writer Randolph Bourne, is the health of the state.

Wars are the ramifications of societies that worship the state, where the gullible public are misled to exalt the illusions of the supposed virtues of nationalism by ignoring the destructive real effects of such political actions.

Wars will always be a recourse or an option of any society that depends on political redistribution of resources.

The US as Human Rights Violator

US President Obama recently dissed on China’s human rights record.

However, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts exposes on this charade,

Washington is now in the second decade of murdering Muslim men, women, and children in six countries. Washington is so concerned with human rights that it drops bombs on schools, hospitals, weddings and funerals, all in order to uphold the human rights of Muslim people. You see, bombing liberates Muslim women from having to wear the burka and from male domination.

One hundred thousand, or one million, dead Iraqis, four million displaced Iraqis, a country with destroyed infrastructure, and entire cities, such as Fallujah, bombed and burnt with white phosphorus into cinders is the proper way to show concern for human rights.

Ditto for Afghanistan. And Libya.

In Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia Washington’s drones bring human rights to the people.

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA prison sites are other places to which Washington brings human rights. Obama, who has the power to murder American citizens without due process of law, is too powerless to close Guantanamo Prison.

He is powerless to prevent himself from supplying Israel with weapons with which to murder Palestinians and Lebanese citizens to whom Obama brings human rights by vetoing every UN resolution passed against Israel for its crimes against humanity.

Instead of following Washington’s human rights lead, the evil Chinese invest in other countries, buy things from them, and sell them goods.

For US politicians, moral standards seem to fall into “might makes right”—where there is one set of morality for political opponents and another set for the self-instituted policeman of the world.

The numerous atrocities committed by the US, as part of their imperial foreign policy, serves as further evidence that in Asia (particularly on the US military's proposed expansion due to the Spratly’s issue) the China threat has mostly been a contrived issue which exemplifies H.L. Mencken’s series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. Such is borne out of the continuing promotion of war policies meant to uphold the interests of the political class and their welfare-warfare clients/cronies.

Of course, infractions on human rights issues does not extend only to foreigners but to the Americans themselves, in their homeland.

Again Mr. Roberts,

Washington’s concern with human rights does not extend as far as airport security where little girls and grandmothers are sexually groped. Antiwar activists have their homes invaded, their personal possessions carried off, and a grand jury is summoned to frame them up on some terrorist charge. US soldier Bradley Manning is held for two years in violation of the US Constitution while the human rights government concocts fabricated charges to punish him for revealing a US war crime. WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is harassed endlessly with the goal of bringing him into the human rights clutches of Washington. Critics of Washington’s inhumane policies are monitored and spied upon.

More signs that the US appears to be moving away from the embodiment of the “Land of the Free”.

How War Policies will Hurt the US

The economics of war will eventually weigh on the US.

The following is an excerpt from a must read article by investing guru Doug Casey (bold emphasis mine)

An AK-47 costs less than $500 most places in the world; the bullets cost about 20 cents apiece, and the teenager to employ them costs nothing at all. In fact, teenagers in the Muslim world are in such oversupply that they can be said to have a negative cost.

A US soldier, by contrast, is immensely expensive. Even though most of them come from lower socio-economic levels, a substantial investment has been made in taking them even through Grade 12. Then comes the cost of recruiting, training, equipping, paying, insuring, housing and transporting them in the military. I’m not sure the cost of a US soldier in the field has ever been accurately computed, but it has to be well over a million dollars for a simple grunt and much more for a specialist. That’s not counting the lifetime of pension benefits and medical care for the maimed. And with battlefield medical as good as it now is, the ratio of seriously wounded to dead is much higher than ever before. You may sympathize with the US soldier, but he’s definitely on the wrong side of the equation.

An M-1 tank costs about $5 million a copy. It, or any other vehicle, can be destroyed by an IED fabricated from fertilizer or unexploded ordnance. Even if it’s not destroyed, or not even severely damaged, the brains of its occupants are likely to be scrambled by the blast wave. This is, incidentally, something that is underappreciated. A blast wave bounces a brain around in a skull like an egg inside a tin can. Considering that IEDs are both devastating and extremely hard to detect, it’s no wonder they’re so popular.

Have you ever wondered why there’s no reporting on the numbers of tanks, APCs, Humvees, helicopters and other (immensely expensive) hardware being destroyed in the current US wars? It’s classified, because the numbers would be so embarrassing. Unlike in Vietnam, there’s no longer any body count of the enemy because that would be politically incorrect. But it doesn’t matter how large it is; every dead jihadi is a dragon’s tooth that will grow back as ten replacements. That’s why there’s really no way to win a guerrilla war before you go bankrupt – no way short of genocide or at least serious mass murder.

A $1,000 RPG will easily destroy a million-dollar armored personnel carrier and its occupants. A $10,000 shoulder-launched missile can take out a $10 million helicopter or a $40 million F-16. It may be practically impossible to shoot down a $1 billion B-2 bomber, but that’s academic; they were built to fight a nuclear war against the USSR. They’re useless except to deliver atomic weapons, but the new enemy lives in refugee camps and scattered within teeming cities. The B-2’s codename should be changed from Spirit to Albatross, because it’s not only totally uneconomic, it’s almost totally useless.

So the economics of guerrillas attacking an invading superpower are excellent. In response, the economics of a superpower attacking guerrillas or terrorists are disastrous. In its current wars, the US winds up using cruise missiles, at around $1.5 million each, to blow up wedding parties. The direct expense is bad enough; the vastly greater indirect expense is the creation of a clan of new enemies. The best result is for the missile to just pulverize some sand. Even if it hits a few mujahidin, that’s placing an implied value of several hundred thousand dollars apiece on their heads.

In other words, whether we’re looking at offense or defense, the economics of destruction are tilted not just 10 to1, not just 100 to 1, but probably closer to 1,000 to 1 in the favor of insurgents.

Perhaps you’re thinking further advances in technology will tilt the equation back toward the US. But as I explained above, the effect of each innovation will be just the opposite after only a short period of technological monopoly. People have a lot of misplaced confidence in the so-called "defense" establishment to come up with marvelous devices to confound groups designated as the enemy. Of course advances will be made, at least for as long as the US government has scores of billions to spend on R&D annually – which it soon may not, for financial reasons. But even if it diverts funds from its myriad other projects, the procurement process is stultifyingly bureaucratic, slow and costly. It’s not at all entrepreneurial, which it still was to a degree even during WWII, when the P-51, the best fighter of the war, was taken from concept to production in nine months and turned out for $50,000 a copy.

The US will even lose the war for new weapons as time goes on, simply because the Defense Department bureaucracy is so counterproductive. It’s like the company Dilbert works for in the cartoon pitted against millions of independent entrepreneurs in the Open Source world. Dilbert’s company moves like a dinosaur, while the Open Source world watches, imitates, innovates and improves at warp speed.

Today a ponderous state supposedly represents our side (I italicize that because, although I truly dislike many of the people it’s fighting against, I consider it to be an even greater danger). At best, it resembles a dim, tired old Tyrannosaurus up against hundreds of smart young Velociraptors intent on eating it. The outcome is obvious: a bunch of the attackers will get killed, but the T-Rex is dead meat.

Remember that there are more scientists and engineers alive today than in all of human history before them, the vast majority from non-OECD countries. The ones who are any good don’t want to work in a constrained, bureaucratic environment with no financial upside. Entirely apart from that, if the minions of the perversely named Defense Department come up with a real super-weapon, in today’s world it’s easy to replicate and improve on, and for a fraction of the original cost. That’s why there are scores of thousands of apps developed for most any electronic device that hits the market today – in addition to the device itself being "knocked off" illegally by small factories that could be anywhere.

Terrorism icon Osama bin Laden’s goal was reportedly to bankrupt the US. And the US has been fighting a 20th century modeled war, when times (or warfare’s evolving dynamics) has been dramatically changing.

In line with the way incumbent political institutions have been structured, the US political establishment has been failing to keep with the new realities (or with the emergent forces of decentralization). And at worst, they seem to be falling right into bin Laden’s ‘war of attrition’ trap.

Yet you can profit from terror (or political folly) as Doug Casey points out, read the rest here

Huge Military Industrial Complex Equals Big Government

The US have been pampering her military institutions...

From Bloomberg,

The two-star general’s new home came with granite countertops, hardwood floors, stainless appliances and high expectations. It was a gift to the U.S. Army from the taxpayers of Huntsville, Alabama.

Major General James Pillsbury and wife Becky moved into the house during November 2003. The 4,200-square-foot (390-square- meter) brick villa was built using city paving funds. It was the first of 10 costing a total of $3.8 million that the city donated to the Army to enhance nearby Redstone Arsenal as the Pentagon prepared to close bases around the country.

“It’s what we affectionately call ‘pass-through pork,’” says James Link, a retired Army three-star general who was commander of the arsenal in the 1990s.

Luxury quarters for generals were just part of a leave- nothing-to-chance strategy led by Joe Ritch, a 61-year-old lawyer. Armed with campaign contributions and lobbying funds, his network of politicians, boosters and defense executives helped Huntsville expand its military presence, win billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts and add thousands of jobs. Per capita defense spending climbed to 13 times the national rate, creating an oasis of prosperity in a lackluster U.S. economy.

Huntsville helps show why it’s difficult to slash defense spending. Congress and the president have told the Pentagon to find $450 billion in cuts over the next 10 years. The Defense Department’s past efforts have fallen short. In 2005, the military promised to save $36 billion by consolidating bases and missed its goal by almost two-thirds, according to a January 2009 Government Accountability Office report….

Fifty years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against “the acquisition of unwarranted influence” by “the military-industrial complex” of defense contractors, lawmakers and Pentagon officials. The local advocacy groups represent a new spoke on the wheel that keeps military spending rolling.

US military spending have been the largest in the world and is even larger than the combined spending of rest of the world. (chart from the Economist)

True, there are some areas or sectors that have benefit from such activities. But it is important to note that military spending has not only been non-productive but crowds out resources meant for consumers.

As Professor Thomas Woods aptly writes,

Measurements of “economic growth” can be misleading if they do not differentiate between productive growth and parasitic growth. Productive growth improves people’s standard of living and/or contributes to future production. Parasitic growth merely depletes manpower and existing stocks of goods without accomplishing either of these ends. Military spending constitutes the classic example of parasitic growth.

In other words, politically privileged sectors (or cronies) are again beneficiaries of politically allocated expenditures—all for the sake of the preservation and expansion of power over society—which incidentally resonates with the title of the Bloomberg article quoted above “Big Gov’t Embraced to Keep U.S. Generals Happy”

As the great Murray Rothbard wrote, (bold emphasis mine)

What the State fears above all, of course, is any fundamental threat to its own power and its own existence. The death of a State can come about in two major ways: (a) through conquest by another State, or (b) through revolutionary overthrow by its own subjects, in short, by war or revolution. War and revolution, as the two basic threats, invariably arouse in the State rulers their maximum efforts and maximum propaganda among the people. As stated above, any way must always be used to mobilize the people to come to the State's defense in the belief that they are defending themselves. The fallacy of the idea becomes evident when conscription is wielded against those who refuse to "defend" themselves and are, therefore, forced into joining the State's military band: needless to add, no "defense" is permitted them against this act of "their own" State.

In war, State power is pushed to its ultimate, and, under the slogans of "defense" and "emergency," it can impose a tyranny upon the public such as might be openly resisted in time of peace. War thus provides many benefits to a State, and indeed every modern war has brought to the warring peoples a permanent legacy of increased State burdens upon society.

So some pointers from the above…

Wars have been provoked or incited (directly or discreetly) by politicians to expand political control over society and or to gratify the whims or ideologies of politicians and or to protect the interest of certain powerful groups (Read Anthony Gregory’s excellent review of historian Ralph Raico’s book here)

Wars do not benefit society, but politicians and their private sector allies.

The threat of wars signifies as propaganda bogeymen meant to justify the existence and the expenditures of the military industrial complex.

Military expenditures have been a drain to the economy as resources are diverted to non-productive or non-market (consumer) uses.

Military expenditures partly account for as implicit buying of the military’s support to sustain politicians’ control over society and to eliminate the risk of a military orchestrated upheaval.

And like the welfare state the warfare state essentially represents crony capitalism or State Corporatism.

Bottom line: The warfare state is largely incompatible with economic, political and civil freedom.

Iranian Terror Plot: US Government’s Imaginary Hobgoblins

From Judge Andrew P. Napolitano (bold emphasis mine)

Since the tragedy of 9/11, numerous crazies and low-level copy-cats have engaged in criminal behavior which they hoped would result in the deaths of innocent Americans and somehow advance the cause of jihad. If you ask the leadership of the FBI, most of whose field agents are tireless, dedicated, Constitution-supporting professionals, it will tell you that it has foiled about seventeen plots to kill Americans during the past ten years. What it will not tell you is that there have been twenty foiled plots; and of them, three were interrupted by members of the public. The seventeen that were interrupted by the feds were created by them.

We all remember the three that were foiled by diligent Americans: The shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the Times Square bomber. In all of these cases, the crimes charged were those of attempting to kill and conspiring with others to do so. In all three of those cases, alert Americans on transcontinental flights on or the streets of New York told authorities of bizarre behavior, or actually subdued the threats themselves. There was no foiling by the FBI. The plotters were – thankfully – bumbling fools who had poorly planned their criminal behavior, and who ended up harming no one. All three are serving life terms.

But the more curious cases are the remaining seventeen for which the federal government has taken credit. They all have a common and reprehensible thread. They were planned, plotted, controlled, and carried out by the federal government itself. In all of these seventeen cases – from the Ft. Dix Six to the Lackawanna Seven to the Portland Parade Bomber – the feds found young men of Muslim backgrounds; loners who were bitter at America. They befriended them, cajoled them, and persuaded them that they could change the world by killing Americans. In all these cases, agents worked undercover and portrayed themselves to the targets as Arabs of like un-American mind. In some cases, the federal agents used third parties to act as middlemen. The third parties are typically persons who have been convicted of crimes and who, in return for leniency at their sentencings, were willing to work with the same feds who prosecuted them in order to help entrap whomever else those feds are pursuing.

Thus, in all seventeen of these cases, because of the command and control of federal agents, no one was ever in danger, no one was harmed, no bomb went off, and no property was damaged. But in all those cases, the losers whom the feds targeted each believed that they were interacting with real plotters who would really bring them cash and bombs. As we know, sometimes the cash arrived, but the bombs never did. The defendants were essentially charged and convicted for playing a game with federal agents.

The most recent of those government-generated plots was revealed yesterday. It has a new twist as it allegedly involves agents of the intelligence apparatus of the government of Iran. It, too, was destined to go nowhere, as the feds monitored and taped every move made by the target as he interacted with federal agents whom he stupidly believed to be drug dealers and co-conspirators. Today, the feds themselves revealed that high officials of Iran's government knew nothing of this. Of course, the neocons have demanded bombs on Tehran, no matter what the government there knew. And this plot came to light the day before the Attorney General himself was subpoenaed by Congress in the Fast and Furious case.

Read the rest here

Creating something from nothing isn’t just about the money printing; essentially this represents the fundamental precept guiding today’s modern political institutions. It’s the politics of free lunch.

So in order to justify the existence, the continued funding and the expansion of the warfare-anti terror state, credits on political ‘achievement’ targets has to be demonstrated. Hence if there have been no actual terror threats, then, as shown above, just engineer one.

With the help of mainstream media and the sundry apologists for the establishment, our civil liberties would then be diminished in the name of the security.

The great libertarian H. L. Mencken was darned right,

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.