You must log in or register to comment.

ziq OP wrote (edited )

fuck every american who shills for this imperial lord in the hopes that he'll instill them with material privileges


asg101 wrote

The junior war party is striving to take over the top position. Fuck both factions of the plutocracy party.


celebratedrecluse wrote

the DOD would in my calculations at this rate get approximately one trillion dollars per year, plus the intelligence agencies on top of this, and private contracts, plus hundreds of billions of interest alone from the war debt from the iraq war, in the annual budget by the end of a hypothetical biden first term in 2024. Assuming no rate of change, anyway.


celebratedrecluse wrote

this also does not include the off-budget stuff. In my estimation, there is about a couple hundred billion USD in off-books economic funding for the war effort and its infrastructure.

Since the USA has invaded and established on the ground operations and partnerships in south asia (Afghanistan, Vietnam) for the past forty to fifty years, there's been a hand-off of the traditional opioid sale infrastructure from the british to the USA. This goes back to the opium wars the British fought over their "free trade rights" to sell indian dope to china, when the local chinese monarchy wanted the right to sell it themselves, in the 19th century. However, USA involvement dates directly to the 70s and the consequences of the extended campaign to take over French colonies in SEA, and really took off with the 1980s black ops to back insurgents in afghanistan against the USSR invasion.

This opioid trade by the anglo americans has always, since the british crown was overseeing it, the privatization of such a "immoral" enterprise. First it was the East India Company, now it's the Northern Alliance's seedier members managing the trade for the CIA, GCHQ, and ultimately ISAF/NATO.

Not only does the trade make money for the CIA, it also strengthens the USA's allies on the ground, and keeps the country afloat with enough money that it forestalls total defeat and economic revolt for the imperialists. It also gives the common people of the colonized countries a reason to be loyal to politicians and generals who are in turn loyal to the USA and its corporations (who for example need afghanistan to mine minerals and run pipelines through), when otherwise they would have no reason to want colonizers in their neighborhoods and cities and villages.

Additionally, the poor of the USA, especially veterans and the homeless, are kept more compliant, criminalized and slowly killed off by the end products: heroin, made from the poppies grown in Afghanistan but refined in Mexico and Colombia, and adulterated with (typically) Chinese-manufactured fentanyl to increase the middlemens' profit margins further.

None of this is likely to be exactly planned out in excruciating detail in Langley, Virginia, USA. Parts of it certainly are, and there are coverups and hidden details which will come out later, but i think it's more accurate to understand this as a mode of production, a network of relationships and incentives arranged by multiple parties for their own individual benefits, rather than a top-down hierarchical conspiracy. Some players have more chips than others, but they are all capable of agency. They compete or cooperate, depending on when it suits them.

For example, would it surprise some of you that the USA intelligence has since at least 2006 paid taliban fighters to not attack USA or ISAF-backed government convoys in difficult regions, instead of paying for the military vehicles needed to try and defend the convoys?

Does this make sense geopolitically for USA? Not really, it directly funds the insurgency, allows them to purvey the relatively cheap arms you need to effectively contest USA's power in the region, and then some. However, it makes perfect sense for the CIA, which is able to gain and maintain ongoing relationships with parts of the taliban, and arrange the war to happen more on a schedule which suits both parties. It allows CIA and other to save money on the books, which can then go to private contractors, further profiting them. It has even more benefits, which we could go on and on about, but the basic principle is that the USA's state is federated and subdivided and privatized, to the point that it is impossible to understand why their state will undertake actions without understanding that it's not a monolithic entity and they have interests which are at odds with themselves.

The goal of people implementing USA policy in afghanistan, and throughout its empire in general, has never been to achieve USA's stated geopolitical or ideological interests. It's always been about profit, for various different groups and individuals. The ideology and geopolitical interests, are not that of a nation-state as it is traditionally understood, but rather that of multiple organs which might share a capitalist class character but which are not reliably cooperative with each other within the state, nor are they reliably seeking the same proximate goals or even trust each other.

Perversely, there are those within the anti-USA insurgency, who benefit from the USA being around-- it gives them a political raison d'etre, and consolidates their power within their own context internally within their social spaces. This is why you see "islamic fundamentalists" cutting deals with CIA agents for millions of dollars, selling their affiliates poppies in contravention of pretty much any interpretation of islamic law, and other scandalous activities. It's about power, more than ideology or national liberation or anything else they might say. Plus, religious fundamentalists have more in common with each other than anyone else, if you think about it, even if they're of different religions. Many of them hate each other, and their organizations are reliably in conflict, but there are always a few who are willing to do business if it suits the powerful people involved.

So this complicated mess continues. the incentives all line up for all of these parties, the results are continuous uninterrupted and ongoing, and it would be absurd to think various higher-ups are somehow not aware or consenting to the series of arrangements.

Having a diversity of income sources, a diverse portfolio, is great for intelligence communities and militaries because it allows for operations which are system-sustaining but perhaps unpopular or otherwise politically or optically problematic, to occur without the need for even a modicum of oversight. For example, the manipulation of the media or culture domestically by an agency forbidden to operate within the boundaries of the country, the conducting of warmaking or assassinations or other activities internationally which need to be disownable or otherwise held at arm's length from the state, the scheming of one sub-group or department or gang within the state against another group within that state, or any number of other activities which might be lucrative or necessary from their perspective, but which nontheless need to be funded without any sort of paper trail.

War is good for prohibition. And prohibition is good for war, because it makes a ton of money off of the exploited labor of colonized farmers, marginalized communities the world over, and the underclass of drug users in a puritanical & hypocritical society which disowns their own, abandoning traumatized people to suffer needless deaths simply for seeking pain relief or trying to survive by hustling in a wasteland left bereft of most other options.

Untangling all of these relationships between powerful people who spread violence all over the world, will require dividing the violent forces against each other and uniting those who have a shared interest in the violence stopping. This is why intersectional analysis is crucial to the well-being of marginalized people all over the world, as is a clear ontological map of the ways powerful forces will use hierarchical institutions and relationships to both compete and reinforce each other, even in superficially counterintuitive ways.


FuckCopyright wrote

private contracts

To me, the only thing worse than a conventional military is a private military.