What can be done in response to Peak Oil?

WHAT CAN BE DONE IN RESPONSE TO PEAK OIL?

How should we respond to the dire predictions that Peak Oil will be a powerful catalyst for energy war, social dislocation, and massive upheaval?

First, we need to understand what we mean when we say that Peak Oil is a catalyst. It is not a cause of energy wars in Middle East, which have been underway from the late19the century. Nor is it a direct cause for the Middle East arms race, which can be traced back to the 1950s. Furthermore, waves of starvation in poorer countries, the flow of capital to energy producers, climate change, and similar global phenomena do not require a serious gap in oil supply and demand to take place. They all preceded Peak Oil, some by a century. But, the rate of these changes is accelerated by Peak Oil. It puts history on the fast track.

Second, we cannot precisely predict how each trend will accelerate and then influence the others – since they are interconnected.

For example, the ongoing, escalating, and future energy wars to gain hold of a dwindling oil supply and soaring oil profits, in turn, burns up more fuel. As a result, the overall supply goes down, the current price goes up, the atmosphere heats up even more, and the amount of public resources available to develop new sources of energy, to make the use of existing energy more efficient, and to replace outmoded energy infrastructure with new designs and technologies, are all put on the back burner.

On the other side, as the social consequences of Peak Oil continue to unfold, they in turn influence other outcomes. For example, when more money is paid to oil producers, there is also less available for personal consumption because the direct price of transportation, heating and cooking fuel, and driving all go up. Similarly, the indirect energy costs, in the form of the decline of the dollar, as well as open and hidden transportation surcharges, fuel inflation and, therefore, reduce living standards. They amount to a further transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, and from countries like to the US to oil and gas suppliers like Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Voila, the hard times and inequality imposed by the financial resources required to fight energy wars – such as the $3 billion price tag for the Iraq War – are magnified by the austerity resulting from increased energy costs.

This means that political opposition to war and militarism could be paired with opposition to growing inequality and deprivation. This combination is a serious threat to those in power, who understand the fragility of their system much more than progressives do. Peak Oil could produce extraordinary opportunities for activists of all political stripes, whether fascists on the right desperate to save the market system, to communists on the left, happy to dig the grave of capitalism.

Given what we do know about energy wars and social dislocation, and what we do not know about the uneven and intertwined trends accelerated by Peak Oil, there are some technical and political responses which should be pursued.

Life style changes: Many people turn to changes in life style, such as working more at home, carpooling, driving a hybrid, avoid styrofoam cups and excessive packaging, and washing clothes in cold water. While none of these “green” changes in behavior hurt, they are only a small part of the solution. They all rely on existing technologies and are, in essence, a way for most people to tighten their belt when the cutbacks of the war machine or energy inflation erode their living standards.

Still others put their faith in the market. They argue that high oil prices mean that alternative energy technologies, such as wind and solar, become profitable, hence investors will flock to them, especially if they get tax break and public subsidies. Yes, this is happening at a small scale, but it overlooks six barriers.

The profit margins of oil and gas are much greater, and it will attract much investment, which could, in a rational system, be spent on less profitable alternative energy.

The history of oil and gas within the market system is endless wars to control supply and profit.

Many alternative energy sources, such as coal, tar sands, and oil shale are dirty. They heavily pollute the air, causing more global warming, as well as water supplies.

Some alternative energies, such as ethanol, use corn, which in turn reduces grain supplies and causes starvation.

New, breakthrough technologies will require a dozen Manhattan Projects, the accelerated government research and development to develop nuclear weapons during WWII. The private sector does not have the resources or the organizational capability for such an undertaking.

Once breakthrough technologies for fusion, solar power, wind and tidal power, hydrogen engines, and other alternative technologies (e.g, new building materials with integrated photosynthetic or photovoltaic properties) are developed, it will take trillions in new investments to rebuild transportation systems, housing, and entire sustainable cities to make them viable. Market economies based on profit and wars are not capable of such an undertaking, especially if it must be done in a matter of decades instead of centuries.

Conclusion:

This is why there is no solution to the overlapping problems ushered in by Peak Oil within the market system. Capitalism may be the root cause, but unlike the myths fostered by neo-liberalism, capitalism cannot be tweaked to clean up its own mess.

This is why we have concluded that the first step to address the consequences of Peak Oil is to take on capitalism itself. This does seem like a daunting task because it is daunting. But we need to understand that the conditions of expanded energy wars combined with ravished economies have, historically, ushered in periods of great social change.

As demonstrated in WWI, when the Russian and Bolshevik revolutions took place, and WWII, when the Chinese revolution took place, two new large scale economies emerged which thought they could rebuild human society based on production to meet human needs, not to produce profits in the market place.

The failure of these revolutions in the form of their reversion back to capitalism does not mean it is impossible to escape from capitalism and the destruction it spawns through such phenomena as Peak Oil. But it does mean that the two cases we have before us, the Soviet Union and China, need to carefully analyzed. It is certainly possible that the doomsday scenarios of Peak Oil will usher in such revolutions, and it will then be incumbent on those new societies to avoid the mistakes which lead to the return of capitalism in Russian and China.

While such an extraordinary undertaking strikes many an insurmountable, a world ravaged by worsening energy wars and massive human suffering is likely to change that pessimistic assessment.

John Pilger has offered still further reasons for the liberals, left-liberals, and progressives who have been swept up in Obamamania. As in his previous column, he lays out a methodical case why Obama, as President, would continue a long tradition of Democratic Party presidents whose administrations fully pursued U.S. imperial interests.

Obama is a truly Democratic expansionist

http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2008/06/pilger-obama-truly-bush

John Pilger, New Statesmen, June 12, 2008

Truly exciting and historic moments have been fabricated around US presidential campaigns for as long as I can recall, generating bullshit on a grand scale

In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.

The nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history", is a product of the new delusion. Actually, it just seems new. Truly exciting and historic moments have been fabricated around US presidential campaigns for as long as I can recall, generating what can only be described as bullshit on a grand scale. Race, gender, appearance, body language, rictal spouses and offspring, even bursts of tragic grandeur, are all subsumed by marketing and "image-making", now magnified by "virtual" technology. Thanks to an undemocratic electoral college system (or, in Bush's case, tampered voting machines) only those who both control and obey the system can win. This has been the case since the truly historic and exciting victory of Harry Truman, the liberal Democrat said to be a humble man of the people, who went on to show how tough he was by obliterating two cities with the atomic bomb.

Understanding Obama as a likely president of the United States is not possible without understanding the demands of an essentially unchanged system of power: in effect a great media game. For example, since I compared Obama with Robert Kennedy in these pages, he has made two important statements, the implications of which have not been allowed to intrude on the celebrations. The first was at the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the Zionist lobby, which, as Ian Williams has pointed out, "will get you accused of anti-Semitism if you quote its own website about its power". Obama had already offered his genuflection, but on 4 June went further. He promised to support an "undivided Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. Not a single government on earth supports the Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem, including the Bush regime, which recognises the UN resolution designating Jerusalem an international city.

His second statement, largely ignored, was made in Miami on 23 May. Speaking to the expatriate Cuban community - which over the years has faithfully produced terrorists, assassins and drug runners for US administrations - Obama promised to continue a 47-year crippling embargo on Cuba that has been declared illegal by the UN year after year.

Again, Obama went further than Bush. He said the United States had "lost Latin America". He described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua as a "vacuum" to be filled. He raised the nonsense of Iranian influence in Latin America, and he endorsed Colombia's "right to strike terrorists who seek safe-havens across its borders". Translated, this means the "right" of a regime, whose president and leading politicians are linked to death squads, to invade its neighbours on behalf of Washington. He also endorsed the so-called Merida Initiative, which Amnesty International and others have condemned as the US bringing the "Colombian solution" to Mexico. He did not stop there. "We must press further south as well," he said. Not even Bush has said that.

It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The "truly exciting and historic moment in US history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged.

Pilger - Obama's speech to AIPAC is the tip of the iceberg

For some, Barack Obama's recent speech to AIPAC was an unexpected eye-opener. Contrary to the dovish aura he casts in the electoral campaign, his remarks to AIPAC presented the political views of Israel's Likud party, a conservative block closely allied with the U.S.'s neo-cons.

In the following column, journalist and film-maker John Pilger not only describes Obama's backward views on Israel, but demonstrates that these are fully consistent with the rest of his and his advisers' foreign policy positions on Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan.

If you are one of those millions drawn to Obama because you think he is progressive and a sharp contrast to John McCain, please read Pilger's column in careful detail. It makes the best case yet that Obama is as hawkish as the rest of the Democratic Party, holding only minor disagreements with McCain on nearly all foreign policy questions.

After Bobby Kennedy

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-pilger-mccain-kennedy

John Pilger, New Statesman, 29 May 2008

Bobby Kennedy's campaign is the model for Barack Obama's current bid to
be the Democratic nominee for the White House. Both offer a false hope
that they can bring peace and racial harmony to all Americans.

In this season of 1968 nostalgia, one anniversary illuminates today. It
is the rise and fall of Robert Kennedy, who would have been elected
president of the United States had he not been assassinated in June 1968.
Having travelled with Kennedy up to the moment of his shooting at the
Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on 5 June, I heard The Speech many times.
He would "return government to the people" and bestow "dignity and
justice" on the oppressed. "As Bernard Shaw once said," he would say,
"'Most men look at things as they are and wonder why. I dream of things
that never were and ask: Why not?'" That was the signal to run back to
the bus. It was fun until a hail of bullets passed over our shoulders.

Kennedy's campaign is a model for Barack Obama. Like Obama, he was a
senator with no achievements to his name. Like Obama, he raised the
expectations of young people and minorities. Like Obama, he promised to
end an unpopular war, not because he opposed the war's conquest of other
people's land and resources, but because it was "unwinnable".

Should Obama beat John McCain to the White House in November, it will be
liberalism's last fling. In the United States and Britain, liberalism as
a war-making, divisive ideology is once again being used to destroy
liberalism as a reality. A great many people understand this, as the
hatred of Blair and new Labour attest, but many are disoriented and eager
for "leadership" and basic social democracy. In the US, where unrelenting
propaganda about American democratic uniqueness disguises a corporate
system based on extremes of wealth and privilege, liberalism as expressed
through the Democratic Party has played a crucial, compliant role.

In 1968, Robert Kennedy sought to rescue the party and his own
ambitions from the threat of real change that came from an alliance of
the civil rights campaign and the anti-war movement then commanding the
streets of the main cities, and which Martin Luther King had drawn
together until he was assassinated in April that year. Kennedy had
supported the war in Vietnam and continued to support it in private, but
this was skilfully suppressed as he competed against the maverick Eugene
McCarthy, whose surprise win in the New Hampshire primary on an anti-war
ticket had forced President Lyndon Johnson to abandon the idea of another
term. Using the memory of his martyred brother, Kennedy assiduously
exploited the electoral power of delusion among people hungry for
politics that represented them, not the rich.

"These people love you," I said to him as we left Calexico, California, where
the immigrant population lived in abject poverty and people came like a
great wave and swept him out of his car, his hands fastened to their lips.

"Yes, yes, sure they love me," he replied. "I love them!" I asked him
how exactly he would lift them out of poverty: just what was his
political philosophy? "Philosophy? Well, it's based on a faith in this
country and I believe that many Americans have lost this faith and I want
to give it back to them, because we are the last and the best hope of the
world, as Thomas Jefferson said."

"That's what you say in your speech. Surely the question is: How?"

"How . . . by charting a new direction for America."

The vacuities are familiar. Obama is his echo. Like Kennedy, Obama may
well "chart a new direction for America" in specious, media-honed
language, but in reality he will secure, like every president, the best
damned democracy money can buy.

Embarrassing truth

As their contest for the White House draws closer, watch how,
regardless of the inevitable personal smears, Obama and McCain draw
nearer to each other. They already concur on America's divine right to
control all before it. "We lead the world in battling immediate evils and
promoting the ultimate good," said Obama. "We must lead by building a
21st-century military . . . to advance the security of all people
[emphasis added]." McCain agrees. Obama says in pursuing "terrorists" he
would attack Pakistan. McCain wouldn't quarrel.

Both candidates have paid ritual obeisance to the regime in Tel Aviv,
unquestioning support for which defines all presidential ambition. In
opposing a UN Security Council resolution implying criticism of Israel's
starvation of the people of Gaza, Obama was ahead of both McCain and
Hillary Clinton. In January, pressured by the Israel lobby, he massaged a
statement that "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people" to
now read: "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the
failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel [emphasis
added]." Such is his concern for the victims of the longest, illegal
military occupation of modern times. Like all the candidates, Obama has
furthered Israeli/Bush fictions about Iran, whose regime, he says
absurdly, "is a threat to all of us".

On the war in Iraq, Obama the dove and McCain the hawk are almost
united. McCain now says he wants US troops to leave in five years
(instead of "100 years", his earlier option). Obama has now "reserved the
right" to change his pledge to get troops out next year. "I will listen
to our commanders on the ground," he now says, echoing Bush. His adviser
on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in
Iraq until 2010. Like McCain, Obama has voted repeatedly in the Senate to
support Bush's demands for funding of the occupation of Iraq; and he has
called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. His senior advisers
embrace McCain's proposal for an aggressive "league of democracies", led
by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations.

Amusingly, both have denounced their "preachers" for speaking out.
Whereas McCain's man of God praised Hitler, in the fashion of lunatic
white holy-rollers, Obama's man, Jeremiah Wright, spoke an embarrassing
truth. He said that the attacks of 11 September 2001 had taken place as a
consequence of the violence of US power across the orld. The media
demanded that Obama disown Wright and swear an oath of loyalty to the
Bush lie that "terrorists attacked America because they hate our
freedoms". So he did. The conflict in the Middle East, said Obama, was
rooted not "primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel", but
in "the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam". Journalists
applauded. Islamophobia is a liberal speciality.

The American media love both Obama and McCain. Reminiscent of mating
calls by Guardian writers to Blair more than a decade ago, Jann Wenner,
founder of the liberal Rolling Stone, wrote: "There is a sense of
dignity, even majesty, about him, and underneath that ease lies a
resolute discipline . . . Like Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama challenges
America to rise up, to do what so many of us long to do: to summon 'the
better angels of our nature'." At the liberal New Republic, Charles Lane
confessed: "I know it shouldn't be happening, but it is. I'm falling for
John McCain." His colleague Michael Lewis had gone further. His feelings
for McCain, he wrote, were like "the war that must occur inside a
14-year-old boy who discovers he is more sexually attracted to boys than
to girls".

The objects of these uncontrollable passions are as one in their
support for America's true deity, its corporate oligarchs. Despite
claiming that his campaign wealth comes from small individual donors,
Obama is backed by the biggest Wall Street firms: Goldman Sachs, UBS AG,
Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit
Suisse, as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. "Seven
of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors," wrote the investigator Pam
Martens, "consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street
firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated
in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages." A report by
United for a Fair Economy, a non-profit group, estimates the total loss
to poor Americans of colour who took out sub-prime loans as being between
$164bn and $213bn: the greatest loss of wealth ever recorded for people
of colour in the United States. "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my
campaign," said Obama in January, "they won't run my White House and they
will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president."
According to files held by the Centre for Responsive Politics, the top
five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate
lobbyists.

What is Obama's attraction to big business? Precisely the same as
Robert Kennedy's. By offering a "new", young and apparently
progressive face of the Democratic Party - with the bonus of being a
member of the black elite - he can blunt and divert real opposition. That
was Colin Powell's role as Bush's secretary of state. An Obama victory
will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice
movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If
that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent.

Piracies and dangers

America's war on Iran has already begun. In December, Bush secretly
authorised support for two guerrilla armies inside Iran, one of which,
the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, is described by the state
department as terrorist. The US is also engaged in attacks or ubversion
against Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bolivia
and Venezuela. A new military command, Africom, is being set up to fight
proxy wars for control of Africa's oil and other riches. With US missiles
soon to be stationed provocatively on Russia's borders, the Cold War is
back. None of these piracies and dangers has raised a whisper in the
presidential campaign, not least from its great liberal hope.

Moreover, none of the candidates represents so-called mainstream
America. In poll after poll, voters make clear that they want the
normal decencies of jobs, proper housing and health care. They want their
troops out of Iraq and the Israelis to live in peace with their
Palestinian neighbours. This is a remarkable testimony, given the daily
brainwashing of ordinary Americans in almost everything they watch and
read.

On this side of the Atlantic, a deeply cynical electorate watches
British liberalism's equivalent last fling. Most of the "philosophy"
of new Labour was borrowed wholesale from the US. Bill Clinton and
Tony Blair were interchangeable. Both were hostile to traditionalists in
their parties who might question the corporate-speak of their class- based
economic policies and their relish for colonial conquests. Now the
British find themselves spectators to the rise of new Tory,
distinguishable from Blair's new Labour only in the personality of its
leader, a former corporate public relations man who presents himself as
Tonier than thou. We all deserve better.

U.S. Military Set for a Long Campaign in Africa

Economic competition with the European Union, China, and Russia for Africa's natural resources, consumer markets, and cheap labor is quickly evolving into political and military competiton. For those who think that such competition, with their likely evolution into energy wars, is restricted to the Middle East, only need to look south and west, into Africa.

U.S. Military Set for a Long Campaign in Africa

Business Day (Johannesburg), June 5, 2008

http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200806050366.html

By Wilson Johwa, Business Day, Johannesburg, South Africa

STRIDENT hostility towards a US military command centre for Africa (Africom) has prompted the US defence establishment to lobby civil society and key stakeholders in Africa, in a bid to garner support for the centre's planned relocation on African soil. Africom's establishment was announced early last year when US President George Bush argued the need for a unified military command for Africa, excluding Egypt. Previously, the US military divided its African responsibilities among four independent military headquarters, including the US Central Command responsible for its contingent in Djibouti.

Based in Stuttgart, Germany, Africom's intention was that within a year, in October, it would move to a location in Africa where military functions would run alongside development and relief work. Yet the prospect of a US base did not appeal to African states, including SA, which rejected the idea.

Last year, the newly appointed first commander of Africom, Gen William Ward, failed to meet Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota during his visit to drum up support for the planned command. "SA wants absolutely nothing to do with it, not even talking to the Americans about it," Richard Cornwell of the Institute for Strategic Studies (ISS) says. Among other African countries, only Liberia has expressed a willingness to host the proposed centre, which the US said would focus on preventing war rather than on fighting.

However, it has emerged that the centre has been struggling to secure a home on the continent, partly because US-funded aid agencies are averse to working side by side with troops due to the increased risk to development workers and the military's lack of training in meaningful development. As a result, the centre was forced to scale back its plans. Africom will now stay in Germany indefinitely while five smaller regional offices have been put on ice as the military searched for places to locate them.

Africom sees its mission as conducting noncombat evacuations, support for peacekeeping operations and training, waging the global war on terror, and humanitarian relief operations. Resistance in Africa is forcing the US to look at different options. For instance, the office of the secretary for defence for policy aimed to support Africom by establishing a civil-military forum (CMF), managed by the Africa Centre for Strategic Studies (ACSS). Run by the defence department and based at the National Defence University in Washington, ACSS's objectives include building an understanding and support for the war on terror, establishing networks and maintaining relationships with African civilian and military professionals, together with conveying US policy perspectives to African leaders.

It was envisaged that the CMF would become "a place of mutual respect, facilitating dialogue and fostering relationships" between Africom and other members of the civil-military community, particularly international organisations focused on Africa . Former US ambassador to Kenya Mark Bellamy was tasked with developing the CMF concept as well as providing overall management of the CMF effort at ACSS. In another strategy aimed at preparing for Africom's presence in Africa, consultants were contracted to look at "potential fluctuations in the investment, business and political climates in Africa" due to a possible US military presence. The focus of the exercise was to "identify key stakeholders that would benefit or suffer losses economically, financially, socially, politically or in terms of influence" from a decision to base the Africom headquarters or other US military presence in their region of influence in Africa.

Apparently, the "stakeholder survey" entails naming individuals and organisations in the five African regions that would support a US military facility or those that would be disadvantaged, potentially opening the possibility of influencing them directly. But a spokesman for New York-based Ergo Advisors says its brief is merely to show the pros and cons of Africom's presence in whatever country is chosen as host.

The head of the ISS, Mike Hough, says the US's push to tap into Africa's oil resources, together with a desire to counter the growing Chinese influence, make it unlikely it will abandon its planned Africa command centre. When it eventually comes, Africom is less likely to be in southern Africa than in east or north Africa. However, although unlikely, US priorities might change when Bush leaves office early next year. "The one thing that one doesn't know is if the Democrats will take a different line," Hough says.

google562ddc1a20d5e60a.html

Further discussion on Obama as a hawk

Some respondents to the previous post share Red Eye's view that an Obama
administration, despite the dovish impression he gives to doves, will continue
the long trajectory of increased U.S. government militarism, especially in the
Middle East, including an alignment with the Likud in Israel. Others believe
-- mostly on their hopes rather than on any hard evidence -- that Obama is
really a sheep in wolf's clothing. Once elected, he will unveil his hidden,
dovish self and ramp down U.S. militarism.

While I understand this hope, I think it is based on wishful thinking. This
should be clear to those who take a careful look at Obama's actual
positions, his foreign policy advisers, his big givers, and the job he will
inherit. After all, Obama would be the Chief Executive and
Commander-in-Chief of an enormous, but rapidly declining empire. It is
armed to the teeth and intent or remaining the planet's hegemonic power,
especially when it comes to oil.

Furthermore, Obama, like the other candidates, proposes an expansion of the
military in terms of troops and budget. He also will be the leader of a party
which has a long history of foreign wars (WWI, Korea, Cold, Vietnam, Kosovo)
and domestic repression (WWI Sabotage act, WWII concentration camps for
Japanese, post-war witch hunts, Cointelpro, Patriot Act, Homeland Security).
Finally, he will inherent the Carter Doctrine (Persian Gulf oil is a vital US interest,
and the US government will use military force to secure it), as well as most of
Carter's and Clinton's foreign policy teams.

Face it, the Democratic Party' establishment (funders, think tanks,
officials, pundits) are extremely hawkish, and they have catapulted Obama
to be their nominee in just a few years. The doves, like Kucinich, are a
tiny fringe. They may have widespread support from the party's base, but no
influence when it comes to foreign and military policy.

Conclusion? Without an enormous mass movement similar to the 60s and early
70s, the "change" just won't happen. A few pleasant words pitched at
progressive voters influenced by ahistorical hopes, negative campaigning
(Republicans are bad), and wedge issues (abortion, guns, sustainability),
may win "lesser evil" votes, but they will not produce a qualitative change
in foreign policy.

Obama's Speech to AIPAC

Here is Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC on June 3, 2008, about his explicit Israel policy and implicit Palestine policy. It is hard to discern any change in his remarks regards US government policy toward Israel, Iran, or much else in the Middle East. The one exception could be a collapse in Iraq will force his administration change policies and pressure Israel harder for a two state solution in order get Sunni support for U.S. military actions in the Persian Gulf. For those who believe his campaign rhetoric of change, this ought to be one more warning to brace yourself for disappointment. The most hawkish sections of the speech have been highlighted below.

The real message of this talk is that the settlements and the occupation -- which are not discussed -- will continue directly with strong U.S. government support or through some willing Palestinian Authority bantustan. The rest of U.S. government policy in the Middle East would also continue, perhaps with the hope that some troops (actually 100,000 more per Obama's proposals) can be moved from Iraq to take on the Afghan occupation, Iran, or Pakistan.


Obama's AIPAC Speech and Rahm's Endorsement

http://www.observer.com/2008/reaction-obama-aipac

Right after Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC this morning he was endorsed by Rahm Emanuel, a leading member of the House.

(The Illinois congressman has largely stayed out of the election because he is a friend of Obama's and also has close ties to the Clintons.)

Emanuel, who belongs to an Orthodox Jewish congregation in Chicago, then accompanied Obama to a meeting with AIPAC's executive board, Mark Halperin reports.

Here is full text of Obama's speech, as prepared for delivery:

Remarks at AIPAC Policy Conference

Senator Barack Obama

June 4, 2008

As Prepared for Delivery

It’s great to see so many friends from across the country. I want to congratulate Howard Friedman, David Victor and Howard Kohr on a successful conference, and on the completion of a new headquarters just a few blocks away.

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative emails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President. And all I want to say is – let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

But if anyone has been confused by these emails, I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.

One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that you fight for this common cause from the bottom up. The lifeblood of AIPAC is here in this room – grassroots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country, who come to Washington year after year to make your voices heard. Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have travelled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests – it’s rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as President, I will work with you to ensure that it this bond strengthened.

I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was eleven years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black, he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was two. My mother was white, she was from Kansas, and I’d moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn’t know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea – that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

I also learned about the horror of the Holocaust, and the terrible urgency it brought to the journey home to Israel. For much of my childhood, I lived with my grandparents. My grandfather had served in World War II, and so had my great uncle. He was a Kansas boy, who probably never expected to see Europe – let alone the horrors that awaited him there. And for months after he came home from Germany, he remained in a state of shock, alone with the painful memories that wouldn’t leave his head.

You see, my great uncle had been a part of the 89th Infantry Division – the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. They liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, on an April day in 1945. The horrors of that camp go beyond our capacity to imagine. Tens of thousands died of hunger, torture, disease, or plain murder – part of the Nazi killing machine that killed 6 million people.

When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. General Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited Congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce, “first-hand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda.”

I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. And those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoah carried with them. Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes, or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when we speak the words: “never again.”

It was just a few years after the liberation of the camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle, and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.

Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel’s destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don’t even acknowledge Israel’s existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

I have long understood Israel’s quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an IDF helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha Rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children.

I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bi-partisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party. But part of our commitment must be speaking up when Israel’s security is at risk, and I don’t think any of us can be satisfied that America’s recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure.

Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran – which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq – is emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al Qaeda has stepped up its recruitment. Israel’s quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel’s safety.

The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East’s only democracy for the region’s extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.

That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat – from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade – investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we – as friends of Israel – must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it. Because a secure, lasting peace is in Israel’s national interest. It is in America’s national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab world. As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won’t wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my Administration.

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this Administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.

The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking. I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps – consistent with its security – to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements – as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis.

Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process – not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That’s what I commit to do as President of the United States.

The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don’t end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.

I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel’s efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel’s leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests. As President, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria’s support for terror. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.

There is no greater threat to Israel – or to the peace and stability of the region – than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, .and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder-to-shoulder in our commitment to Israel’s security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today’s policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran – the hardliners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Senator McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Senator McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy, but offers only an alternate reality – one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium, and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

Senator McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran – it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq’s leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing – if, and only if – it can advance the interests of the United States.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These Presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives – including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear – to the people of Iran, and to the world – that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime – from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

I was interested to see Senator McCain propose divestment as a source of leverage – not the bigoted divestment that has sought to punish Israeli scientists and academics, but divestment targeted at the Iranian regime. It’s a good concept, but not a new one. I introduced legislation over a year ago that would encourage states and the private sector to divest from companies that do business in Iran. This bill has bipartisan support, but for reasons that I’ll let him explain, Senator McCain never signed on. Meanwhile, an anonymous Senator is blocking the bill. It is time to pass this into law so that we can tighten the squeeze on the Iranian regime. We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.

And we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens. And the Bush Administration’s policies have driven up the price of oil, while its energy policy has made us more dependent on foreign oil and gas. It’s time for the United States to take real steps to end our addiction to oil. And we can join with Israel, building on last year’s US-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy by increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development. The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

That is the change we need in our foreign policy. Change that restores American power and influence. Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakeable commitment to its security.

As members of AIPAC, you have helped advance this bipartisan consensus to support and defend our ally Israel. And I am sure that today on Capitol Hill you will be meeting with members of Congress and spreading the word. But we are here because of more than policy. We are here because the values we hold dear are deeply embedded in the story of Israel.

Just look at what Israel has accomplished in 60 years. From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world – from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union. In the face of constant threats, Israel has triumphed. In the face of constant peril, Israel has prospered. In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.

As any Israeli will tell you, Israel is not a perfect place, but like the United States it sets an example for all when it seeks a more perfect future. These same qualities can be found among American Jews. It is why so many Jewish Americans have stood by Israel, while advancing the American story. Because there is a commitment embedded in the Jewish faith and tradition: to freedom and fairness; to social justice and equal opportunity. To tikkun olam – the obligation to repair this world.

I will never forget that I would not be standing here today if it weren’t for that commitment. In the great social movements in our country’s history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man – James Chaney – on behalf of freedom and equality.

Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.

That work must include our shared commitment to Israel. You and I know that we must do more than stand still. Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, just as we move forward in seeking a future of peace for the children of Israel, and for all children. Now is the time to stand by Israel as it writes the next chapter in its extraordinary journey. Now is the time to join together in the work of repairing this world.

"Indefensible Spending" on the U.S. military budget

Robert Scheer's ed-op piece in the Sunday, June 1, 2008, LA Times is useful, important, but also revealing for what it does not say.

The article is useful because it makes it abundantly clear that all three presidential candidates and both major U.S. political parties are totally wedded to a massive military budget which precludes maintaining or expanding essential domestic programs. This means that education, health, job, housing, transportation, and much more are all on the chopping block to sustain the military budget.

It is useful because it represent Scheer's return to the LA Times, a paper which fired him several years ago because of his consistently left-liberal column. But, his return should not be misinterpreted as an about-face by the centrist newspaper suddenly careening to the left. A careful reading of Scheer's piece explains why.

At no point in the following article does Scheer state the obvious, that much of the U.S. military budget is devoted to securing the energy of the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, as well as the shipping, pipeline, and air links to these areas. A good map of the greater Middle East quickly reveals that this is where two-thirds of the worlds proven oil reserves are located, and where the U.S. government has built a large network of bases since the Carter administration. It is also where the U.S. government is now fighting two energy wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and where it is gearing up for expanded military activity in Pakistan and Iran.

These sins of omission amount to a silent approval for these massive military operations. Else where on Red Eye on the News, Michael Klare estimates that these military outposts and adventures cost approximately $150 billion per year, with the Iraq and Afghan occupations adding on another $200 billion. If Africa, Asia, and Latin America are added in, it is clear that the U.S. military is not simply an ATM for military suppliers. It is essential for the protection of U.S. corporate investments in far flung corners of the globe.

What is needed, therefore, is not just the first step of eliminating bogus weapons systems, but the elimination of "necessary" weapons systems, as well. When Scheer takes on this larger part of the military budget, then we will know that he is opposed to the empire, not just to Pentagon boondoggles that stand in the way of an efficient imperialism.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-scheer1-2008jun01,0,7121603.story

From the Los Angeles Times

Indefensible spending

America's massive military budget is irrational, costly and dangerous. Why isn't it a campaign issue?

By Robert Scheer

June 1, 2008

What should be the most important issue in this election is one that is rarely, if ever, addressed: Why is U.S. military spending at the highest point, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than at any time since the end of World War II? Why, without a sophisticated military opponent in sight, is the United States spending trillions of dollars on the development of high-tech weapons systems that lost their purpose with the collapse of the Soviet Union two decades ago?

You wouldn't know it from the most-exhausting-ever presidential primary campaigns, but the 2009 defense budget commits the United States to spending more (again, in real dollars) to defeat a ragtag band of terrorists than it spent at the height of the Cold War fighting the Soviet superpower and what we alleged were its surrogates in the Korean and Vietnam wars.

The Pentagon's budget for fiscal year 2008 set a post-World War II record at $625 billion, and that does not include more than $100 billion in other federal budget expenditures for homeland security, nuclear weapons and so-called black budget -- or covert -- operations.

And what are we spending all this money on? We are talking high-tech war toys designed to fight a Cold War enemy that no longer exists, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, with its estimated total price tag of $300 billion, and Virginia-class submarines at $2.5 billion each. Who cares that the terrorists lack submarines for the Navy to battle deep in the ocean, for which the Virginia-class submarine was designed?

Then there are the F-22 Raptor jet fighters that no longer fill a credible military purpose but will take $65 billion out of taxpayers' pockets. The Raptor includes stealth technology and elaborate electronics designed to counter threatened leaps in Soviet war-fighting capability. In 2005, Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, wrote that the Raptor "is the most unnecessary weapon system being built by the Pentagon."

Since President Bush's first year in office, according to the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Department has doubled its future planned investment in those ultra-pricey weapons from $790 billion to $1.6 trillion.

When pressed on why the massive weapons arsenal we already possess, which was credited with intimidating the Soviet Union into surrender, isn't sufficient to keep the peace in a suddenly unipolar world, defense hawks sometimes cite what they claim is an emerging threat from China. "The Chinese are designing new classes of submarines with increased capabilities," said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). "If we do not move to produce two submarines a year as soon as possible, we are in serious danger of falling behind."

That is nonsense. China is not even a serious regional power, as the Pentagon's 2007 report to Congress makes clear: "The intelligence community estimates China will take until the end of this decade or later to produce a modern force capable of defeating a moderate-size adversary." The report noted that "China's military is focused on assuring the capability to prevent Taiwan independence," but this last week the military threat to Taiwan gave way to a historic peace opening, with the first visit by the head of Taiwan's ruling party to the mainland since the 1949 revolution.

Oh, and here's another thing. Those Virginia-class submarines that Lieberman says are so important to our national security and for which he lobbied so hard? General Dynamics' Electric Boat Co. has received multibillion-dollar contracts to build them. The company is based in Connecticut, suggesting that the real goal here was to find an enemy -- any enemy -- that would justify spending U.S. tax dollars on weapons produced in his home state.



Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has been on a madcap spending spree on wars and weapons having little, if anything, to do with combating terrorism, nothing to do with the imaginary threat from China and everything to do with sustaining an enormously bloated defense industry threatened with extinction because of the demise of the communist enemy. The fact is, the end of the Cold War was a welcome development for everyone except for those in the military-industrial complex whose profits and jobs, as President Eisenhower famously warned, are rooted in every congressional district.

As President George H.W. Bush noted in his 1992 State of the Union address, "communism died this year," and, he promised, "we can stop making the sacrifices we had to make when we had an avowed enemy that was a superpower. Now we can look homeward even more and set right what needs to be set right." Toward that end, he ordered his secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, to initiate a 30% cut in defense spending. Gloom and doom in the military-industrial complex was palpable.

But then came what defense industry lobbyists and their many allies on both sides of the aisle in Congress came to treat as the gift of 9/11, offering dramatic imagery of a new global enemy. Fortunately for those who profit from a permanent war economy, few in government or the media were inclined to challenge the enemy bait-and-switch game that unfolded. The defense industry and the Pentagon bureaucracy that services it were all too happy to accept whatever war they could embrace, even if the new "global war on terrorism" that President George W. Bush launched was to be fought against an enemy armed primarily with weapons that could be purchased for a few dollars at Home Depot.

The Soviets had developed the most modern arsenals, and the 9/11 hijackers were armed with box cutters, so how could we justify spending more to defeat Al Qaeda than we ever did to combat the communist enemy? That is the third-rail issue that politicians and the media dread touching because of the national security hysteria generated after the 9/11 attacks. Yet no presidential candidate can be serious about cutting the federal debt, improving education, holding down taxes or paying for any of the other things that the candidates of both parties promise without cutting military spending.

Without slashing the inflated military budget, the next president, who will inherit at least a $400-billion current-accounts deficit along with debt service on seven years of profligate military spending, will not be able to finance any of the domestic reforms that both the surviving Republican candidate and his two Democratic opponents advocate.

Maybe one can make a case that it is appropriate that more than half of the discretionary funds in the 2009 budget go to defense, and all the other federal programs for science, education, infrastructure, global warming and nonmilitary international programs compete for the rest. But isn't it bizarre that the biggest peacetime military budget in U.S. history -- 35% higher than when Bush came into office and larger than the military budgets of all other nations combined -- is not even discussed in the current presidential contest?

That is because politicians from both parties are complicit in the waste of taxpayer dollars on weapons systems that deliver jobs to their home districts and profits to their defense industry campaign contributors. It is a disease of our political system predicted by two of our great wartime generals-turned-president. First was George Washington, warning in his farewell address that once a nation embarks on the path of imperial adventure, the irrationality of false patriotic appeals would trump reason. What better time to recall Washington's historic caution to the nation "to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

In Eisenhower's farewell address, he warned that "in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

There is no better evidence of the prescience of Washington and Eisenhower than the fact that the most obscenely bloated military budget in U.S. history is not an issue in the current presidential campaign. Sadly, defense spending has become enshrined in our political system as a totem to be worshiped rather than a policy program to be critically examined.

Robert Scheer, who wrote an Op-Ed column for The Times for 13 years, is the editor in chief of Truthdig (truthdig.com) and the author, most recently, of "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America," to be published this week by Twelve Books.