Topic: Ron Paul on the US Military ‘Pivot to Asia’ (Read 368 times)

The Madness of THAAD
The US push for missile defense in Asia will only lead to more missiles and less defense

by John Feffer, May 21, 2015

In the annual spring ritual, the Pentagon brings its tin cup to Congress to beg for appropriations. Earlier this month, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tried to explain to some bewildered members of Congress why the Pentagon required so much money when the United States already spends more than all of its potential adversaries combined.

Dianne Feinstein, a rather hawkish Democrat from California, balked at the request for $1.8 billion for a new nuclear-capable cruise missile that could strike targets a thousand miles away. Her confusion was understandable. Early on his first term, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to embrace nuclear disarmament. But the Pentagon continues to press for more nuclear weapons.

In response to her question, Dempsey said that the missile was absolutely necessary. “Air defenses are improving around the world,” he said, and “keeping that capability to penetrate air defenses with our nuclear deterrent is an important one.”

The United States has probably the strongest nuclear deterrent in the world. It has many more nuclear weapons than it could conceivably need to deter other countries from foolishly imagining that they could attack America with impunity. And yet, even the Pentagon argues that the air defenses of other countries – missile defense – could somehow weaken the US ability to deter a missile attack.

It shouldn’t be that difficult for Dempsey to imagine his counterpart in Beijing making the same argument. In fact, his Chinese counterpart would have a much stronger argument to make. China has far fewer nuclear weapons and far fewer ballistic missiles than the United States. And the United States is the leading advocate of air defenses, particularly missile defense. So, it’s not difficult to understand why China is particularly upset that the United States is pushing its Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in Northeast Asia. ... more

http://original.antiwar.com/feffer/2015/05/20/the-madness-of-thaad/

Also:

5/20/15 John Feffer
John Feffer, the director of Foreign Policy in Focus, discusses the madness of THAAD (Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense) – the US’s missile defense program in Asia, and why its true function is to produce profits for Pentagon contractor Lockheed Martin.

http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2015/05/20/52015-john-feffer/

I read a book by George Friedman (founder of Stratfor) called The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century (http://www.amazon.com/The-Next-100-Years-Forecast/dp/0767923057). While I found his specific predictions pretty unlikely (borderline ridiculous at times), the book begins with an excellent analysis of the rise of US hegemony and the evolution of US strategic foreign policy objectives, the most important of which now are unparalleled naval capabilities and preventing regional powers from becoming strong enough to threaten the US around the world. (If you look at what the US frequently does through this lens, a lot of US actions make a lot more sense.)

Another fantastic point he makes (before he goes all goofy with the predictions) is that foreign policy is larger than any president or any one politician. The external factors and complexity of both global foreign policy and the the military industrial complex often makes it impossible for a president to follow but one course. Essentially, on very large geo-political issues, it doesn't matter who is in office, because of the importance of maintaining the US foreign policy objectives (again, the most important two are unparalleled naval strength and allowing no regional power to project influence beyond their region, thus becoming a world power), every president will follow the same course.

Long story short, I believe this is an obvious such case here. We can look back at Bush's presidency and see similar instances where Bush gets blamed for an action that any president would have taken. But there are two strategic foreign policy objectives the US is protecting here: (1) preventing China from extending it's regional influence deeper out to sea, where it (2) could start to threaten US naval dominance.

(Not to say I agree with this course of action, because I don't. But from the perspective that the US is protecting all its global foreign policy initiatives, it really has no choice but to contain China. And I believe anyone in the White House right now would be doing the same thing.)

Ron Paul on the US Military ‘Pivot to Asia’

Eric Garris, May 23, 2015


As China reclaims land in the South China Sea, the US sends in spy planes to buzz the construction. China warns the US to leave them alone. US, with bases all over the South China Sea area, objects to what it views as Chinese military activity in the region. Is this Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”? Or a diversion from the failed wars against ISIS and the failed proxy war in Ukraine?

Ron Paul talks with Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity:

http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/05/23/ron-paul-on-the-us-military-pivot-to-asia/