Neocon Foreign Policy: Freedom by Bombing

This post will be a not-comprehensive rejection of the neocon foreign policy. Twitter for the past week has been filled with neocons trying to justify their unnecessary murder for democracy. Neocon is actually a combination of two words: “Neo” meaning New. “Con” meaning conservative. I believe neocon foreign policy can probably be traced back to the beginning of American foreign policy. (This may be another post) For the purpose of this post, I think the appropriate place to contextualize the beginning of Neocon foreign policy is 9/11/2001. (Some sources say the 1960s were the birth) Yes, the World Trade Center attacks began the Neocon movement. After the attacks in the following months, there was a push for a war against the countries supposedly harboring the terrorists who carried out the attacks. Unfortunately the Bush Administration ignored the fact that Saudi Arabia was actually the home nation of most the terrorists. Very convenient because Saudi Arabia is a close American ally.

The push for war in first Afghanistan and then Iraq was put forth the loudest by conservatives. Historically, there has always been members of congress called War Hawks. There members traditionally are the loudest voices for war. Also just because the term Neocon contains conservative doesn’t mean it only applies to conservative political leaning. Neocon foreign policy is a bipartisan activity. As far as I’m concerned, I think Vice President Dick Cheney was the unspoken leader of the Neocons. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, a well fed (government contracts) military contractor before his selection to VP. He also served as secretary of defense for a stint under Clinton. I’ve mentioned before that Cheney stayed on as a senior advisor for Halliburton even after taking office. He had plenty of motivation to push the US into two more wars.

We also have to remember that the War on Terror as Bush termed it, was against specifically the terrorist group Al Qaeda, who was known to train and hide in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In classic American foreign policy, the Iraq war had shaky grounds for going in. Saddam Hussein was accused of having weapons of mass destruction which were never found. The false flag plant is not a new tactic in America foreign policy. Nearly every war has at least one, Vietnam War–Gulf of Tonkin, World War 1– Sinking of the Lusitania, World War 2– Pearl Harbor (US knew Japan would attack), Spanish American War– Bombing of the USS Maine… just to name a few. You can start to see the formula for the necon foreign policy forming.

President George W. Bush might have been the beginning of neocon foreign policy but he certainly wasn’t the only one. After Bush’s presidency, the strategy of trying to prevent future conflicts by invading on the assumption of a threat was given a name. It was called the Bush Doctrine. The funny part of all this is that Democratic President Barack H. Obama really cemented the Neocon foreign policy. Obama use preventative war and drone striking in countries such as Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Plus he continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like I said Neocon isn’t exclusively a conservative thing.

Now that we understand what Neocon foreign policy is, I think it’s time to completely reject it as a good form of foreign policy. The first thing I want to say is that America has a position in world power struggle as a hegemonic power. Hegemonic means predominant power. The hegemon position allows America to act in ways that would otherwise be checked by similarly powerful countries. I believe once America loses hegemony, the Neocon foreign policy dies with it. (I’d be lying if I said we aren’t close to losing it) When I look around the world, I don’t see any country using the same style of foreign policy. Which is weird, especially if you think about President Trump’s main enemy China.

China is the hegemon in Asia. China controls nearly all of the Asian sphere of influence. There are many differences in America and China but I think there is one similarity which makes this foreign policy comparison relevant. China’s government, the Chinese Communist Party wants to spread communism just as much as American spreads democracy. Hear me out. The CCP approaches foreign policy very differently than America. China uses more soft power to persuade countries to do whatever it is that China wants. Soft power is things like trade deals, sanctions, border controls, and currency or anything not involving the military. Soft power can be both positive and negative in terms of influence. The US only uses sanctions in soft power, and unfortunately for Trump, he wrongly tried to use tariffs. (Protectionist policies don’t work)

The differences in government style definitely affect the ability of the US to use soft power. The Chinese government has very fine control over every aspect of the government and the economy. Most big industries in China are owned by the government like banking and energy. The US democracy is pretty clunky in that every needs to be voted on and leaders change every four years. You’ll notice that you never hear about China in recent years engaging in any kind of war-like behavior. Some Neocons might tell you because the US would rebuttal them. But in all honesty, the Chinese don’t the fear the US military because their military is larger. The Chinese haven’t been ignoring their military, they have built a lot of battleships and aircraft carriers in recent years. The point here is that there is nothing with using soft power.

The neocon obsession with war is sick. The real problem is that most of these neocons probably have never fought in a war. Their children will never go to war. Take it from me, I think that studying war is the most interesting thing in the world. As a kid, I was fascinated by it, I had so many GI Joes. But personally, I probably couldn’t handle a real war. This is the main reason why I’m against it. I’m not willing to fight in one so why should anybody?

I want to conclude on this thought about Neocon foreign policy. Neocon foreign policy has probably killed more people than its set free. Are the countries who America has tried to help by bombing now better democracies because of it? Although I’m against the organization of all forms of government, I think that peaceful means of negotiation exist between both governments and countries. The main problem with Neocon foreign policy is that it kills a lot of people who don’t deserve it. Also that it doesn’t work. If it did work, we wouldn’t still be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. Democracy isn’t worth spreading.

Thanks for reading!

Check out my Social Media List/Links page

Also Hit the follow button below!

The Neoliberal System: A brief breakdown for understanding.

This is a sort of chaser to my open letter to Trump Supporters. I wanted to go into detail about what the neoliberal system is, and what it means. I didn’t give a ton of detail, only dedicated a few sentences to a thing that is complex and multifaceted. There is a famous quote by Chinese strategist Sun Tzu which perfectly describes why I think it’s necessary to do this blog post:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Sun Tzu on the Art of War

I think that the neoliberal system as I call it, encompasses more than just government. For years, my thinking was government is the enemy along with communists. But in the past year or two, I’ve had this realization that enemies are around every corner, in every facet of society. Strictly speaking, enemies aren’t just those that directly oppose your views, but also those that ally with those who oppose you. So you might be wondering how expansive is the neoliberal system? How many industries and organizations makes it up? Well the list is infinitly growing. But to generalized and in part create a sort of road map, it can be broken down to a few main categories:

– Military Industries
– Corporations fortune 500 (outside of one’s listed below, think Coke Cola, Walmart)
– Media companies (includes social media)
– Telecommunications companies
– Financial business includes banks, stock market
– Energy firms
– Lobbies (lobbyists hold large power in DC)

*Not comprehensive, every conceivable industry or service is in play

This comprises mostly everyone involved but it does leave out a few independently wealth and influential shadow figures who use their wealth to influence actors with the system. Recently Bill Gates comes to mind but there are others who are less well known. Of the biggest contributors are the government which I didn’t put on the list because I’ve already indicated them as enemy #1. You can think of government as the glue that holds all the pieces in place. I think it will be more productive to go over the list and incorporate government’s role in that entity’s place in the neoliberal system. I definitely want to start with the most obvious place that government and other entities come together for the system. It’s actually my forte, the defense industry.

The defense industry has existed in America since before the revolution. It’s organization was strongly influenced by government actions. Although government influence isn’t truly visible until the civil war. Abraham Lincoln and his secretary of war utilized the rifle and firearm industry to mass produce rifles for the union army. They handed out contracts to companies like Colt and Remington. Now fast forward to the Cold War, Dwight D. Eisenhower gives his farewell address. In his address he warns us about the dangers of what he termed the “military industrial complex”. It’s a holtly debated history question about what Eisenhower meant. But fortunately secondary scholarship has figured it out. (Military Industrial Complex by Paul A.C Koistnen) The military industrial complex is the relationship between the government and private military based companies. Now let’s bring it forward to 1995. Dick Cheney is Secretary of Defense under President Clinton. Dick Cheney revolutionized the way that defense contracts were handed out to contractors. He eliminated most of restrictions which led to even less accountability.

During the cold war, the accountability on DoD contracts was already bad. The contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon took advantage by going far over budget. The DoD never held them responsible for overruns. Cheney made worst by giving his own company, Halliburton a big defense contract for the war on terror. Cheney also held a position at Halliburton even after he was elected Vice President. So you can imagine the collusion between private companies producing military material and government contracts. I don’t want to write all I know about the military to government revolving door. I think the point I want to make is clear that government contracts are feeding these military contractors and giving the economy a false sense of success.

Let’s take a break from the military industrial complex and look at another entity that’s less obvious. Recently the media has been called out by various pundits and politicians. But the real problem with media is that it’s comprises about 6 corporations. The media is highly monopolized thanks in part to government regulations. Not to mention that most of media is controlled by one partisan side. The FCC is the main regulator, if you remember when net neutrality was repealed a few years ago, the media obvious went on the offensive because opening up the internet to innovation because it hurts their monopoly. Government also fell in line with (I think it was) Nancy Pelosi said millions would die if net neutrality was repealed. This rhetoric is meant to protect the establishment.

In the past few years but especially since the election there has been mass censorship on social media. Social media is also part of the technocrats in silicon Valley. Social media companies also receive taxpayers money for spying and information collection. In this one brief sentence, I’d point out that private companies receiving government funds voids any private privileges they had.

The media’s role in the neoliberal system is that of spin doctor and censorship arm. Since most democratic led countries make outright censorship illegal, they pass it off to “private” corporations. I think it’s obvious but the military industrial complex role is both defense but more often its offense. Typically following narrative set by media. The oligarchs pulling strings are very careful with these operations. But once you are aware of it, the cracks become obvious.

The next few players are background ones. Lobbyists and the financial industry. For the sake of word count, and for the sake of similarity, we’re lumping these together. Lobbyists are not often talked about by media, politicians or anyone. But anyone that knows government, knows lobbying runs the world. In the early days up until nearly the turn of the 20th century, there was a rule in place about lobbying. Actually lobbying got its name because Lobbyists weren’t allowed to meet the president in the white house or capitol building. Instead Lobbyists would meet in hotel lobbys. Lobbying is big business and it’s how corporations influence government decisions on regulations, laws and oversight. I guess you could say it’s a tool of the corporate entity.

The financial industry has a reputation for being shady. Nothing says more than the 2008 bubble burst. It’s too simple to say that banks are evil, although they most certainly are. Here’s the thing, the revolving door of bank employees to SEC board positions is how the term revolving door was coined. (Pun absolutely intended) Now knowing this, it’s easy to overlook government’s role because it goes further than former bankers making regulations. The federal reserve, a corrupt institution, a central bank, supposedly separate from government control, has the ability to control banks and currency. The federal reserve saw the 2008 crisis at least 6 years prior to it happening. Nobody said anything. They let it happen. It’s a disgusting institution which as the great Ron Paul says we should “End the Fed”.

The banking industry finances the wars, makes sure that money is always available for it. The banks also make sure to keep regular people from having too much freedom. They use interest rates and inflation to devalue the fiat currency. They make sure there is plenty of public debt to keep American dollars valuable to other countries. Its all orchestrated on the behest of government. The president appoints the head of the federal reserve. So of course, politics seeps in and ruins whatever shred of independence the Fed was supposed to have from government. By now you are probably seeing a pattern, in the neoliberal system it’s government that provides the security and protection for otherwise private industries. In this way, the industries become a extending wing of government.

There are 3 industries left, Energy, Telecommunications and large corporations that are fortune 500. I’m combining these because they are secondary players. In the case of Telecommunications and energy both benefit from government monopoly. The government also has unlimited access to phone records and IP addresses. It follows the same pattern of government maintaining control through private companies.

Now the last entity covers a huge swath of industries including some already mentioned. The large, multinational corporations that often dominate the stock market and get big tax breaks from government. Their role is more subtle. The role is cultural compliance. Often times these companies will use their brand to support government based initiatives. Best examples I have are voting campaigns and covid restrictions. All large corporations benefit from the neoliberal system because it’s economic driven, it’s not free market. It’s corporatism. When we’re speaking about a corporatist economy, lobbyists are a prominent player. I also want to point out that government and business are allies. They are inextricably connected. Corporatism wouldn’t be possible without government monopoly.

I hope you’re following what I mean by the neoliberal system. This next part will conclude this post. In the context of my open letter, I blame the neoliberal system for rigging the election. The logic is that the neoliberal system needs a president to fit its mold. By in large, the system confines any president’s agenda because nearly every industry is already co-opted by political partisan influence. The military industrial complex has one of the strongest Lobbies. They have politicians on payroll just as every other industry does.

Now sometimes a president goes against the agenda. Trump seems to have upset the system especially the military industrial complex with his withdrawal of troops from war zones. The neoliberal system demands compliance by every actor in the system. If you act against it, the neoliberal system will push you out and make sure you aren’t credible or in jail. The media has the ability to demonize anyone. There is really no escape however, one can live outside the system. Yes it’s possible. I mentioned it in my open letter how agorism, bitcoin and 3D printed guns can fight the system.

To conclude, the neoliberal system is all private large corporations utilizing the monopoly of power that government holds over everyone else. The system as I describe it, operates with the military industrial complex at its heart. But it wouldn’t be effective without the other industries especially the media, technology sector, and the financial industry. Lobbying plays the important role of middle man, brokering deals to ensure the neoliberal system continues successfully. The point of writing this blog post to help rejected Trump supporters understand why they should join the liberty movement as allies. But I’d also like to extend an olive branch to anyone who will take it. We don’t need to agree on anything but the fact that system must end now.

Thanks for reading!

Please check out my new page called Social Media list/links. It holds every single social media platform that I own. Smack that follow button just below this post, please!

Read the Fine Print

I’ve been busy with personal stuff lately but I felt like this post is necessary because there is urgent need for clarification on multiple topics. There is a lot bad information especially historical economics. What I mean by historical economics is how systems of economics operated in previous centuries, or years for that matter. The change in a given economic system can be seen month to month, year to year, decade to decade. Obviously the more time used in comparison the more drastic the changes. I have seen on social media, multiple bad takes on historical economics that conflate unrelated instances of economic failure on the system itself. Fortunately for you, my areas of expertise in history and my self taught economics knowledge can help us “read the fine print” about the nature of historical economics. In this instance, I will use modern economics as a comparison. Modern being defined as past 20 years or so.

Capitalism- What is it?

Much of the misunderstanding comes direct from the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is a broad term that encapsulates multiple different economic climates and systems. Capitalism is almost never pure. There has been very few times where pure capitalism has existed. Even in those few times, it was brief. According Merriam Webster’s dictionary it defines capitalism as:

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

This definition describes pure capitalism. At the end of the definition it says “Free Market” which in my opinion is a more accurate description of pure capitalism. You may ask what makes capitalism “pure”? Well simply, when a market is free of state or government intervention then its pure. If government is involved in doing any sort of regulations, laws or anything to that effect its not true capitalism anymore.

People often make the mistake of assuming that economic systems are black and white. Its either capitalism, socialism, communism or mercantilism. There is no in-between!  Wrong. An economic system can have facets or features of any combination of economic system.  Economic systems are normally in a gray area, a mix between capitalism and socialism.

Historically Wrong Assumptions

Let me start by saying it straight out: Anytime the government or state is involved in any economic system, that economic system is not “free market”. This is the pervasive commonality that unmasks all these assumptions as wrong.

The first assumption is that if a capitalist system is left unregulated or under-regulated it will lead to rampant corporatism.

This is false because all you have to do is look at our modern economic system here America. Just google how much corporate lobbyists give to government on yearly basis. The problem is that government actually allows corporatism to thrive. Government regulations and laws are usually written by or influenced by big corporations. It allows these big corporations to regulate out their smaller competition by making the business too costly and too complex to get into. Logically then, it would seem that only getting rid of government completely would defeat most corporatism. You also have to keep in mind that monopolies are in part created by government economic policies. In a true free market without state intervention, competition would keep big corporations honest. Plus there is such recourse as common law which would dictate negotiation of contracts being broken and other such infractions.

The second assumption is capitalism has killed 1.6 billion people. (From meme below)

Of course, nobody would argue that capitalism killed nobody. However, the death toll is not 1.6 billion. If you browse all the listed “events” that capitalism was supposedly responsible for the death, the great majority of them were caused by the state. You can’t possibly blame all the war listed under “America Imperialism” on capitalism. Economic systems don’t have armies or military. States do. Which leads directly into my third assumption which will finish this thought.

The third assumption is that the Military Industrial Complex is a result of capitalism.

One of my favorite areas of history and geopolitics is the MIC. I did my senior college project on the MIC. Capitalism is not responsible for the MIC. The MIC occurred as a vehicle for the government to streamline its war production capabilities. The MIC started out very grassroots during the early years especially during the War of 1812. It started to take on similar modernly known features during the American Civil War. One feature of the MIC is the government handing out contracts to private businesses. This is started in earnest during the civil war, Abraham Lincoln’s war department gave contracts to gun manufacturers and textile manufacturers for uniforms. You say but thats capitalism! No.

When the government gives out taxpayer money (stolen money) to a business for a good or service, its state socialism. (Remember government money is a net-negative on the economy because its stolen, and even though its used to help the economy, it gets taxed AGAIN, making its worth exactly zero dollars in creation.)  All of this to say that MIC progressively has gotten worse. It peaked during the Cold War into the mid 1990s when secretary of war (1995) and then former Vice President Dick Cheney modernized the whole process. Under Cheney, the Department of Defense gave out bigger contracts that costed even more money. During the cold war, the War department often gave contracts with little oversight. The DoD had absolutely no accountability for at least 40 years. In the end the DoD, the government squandered 21 trillion dollars. ( National Debt is 25 trillion for reference.

Conclusion 

We need to stop conflating an economic system with government intervention. The fine print literally reads: economic failures are usually involved with government actions. If you need further proof then just do a little research on the Great Recession of 2008. The Federal Reserve saw the collapse coming, yet they took no action. The government allowed banks to trade bad junk loans. The government allow the regulation to keep banks propped up with fiat via the federal reserve. Of course rather than letting bad banks fail, the government bailed them out. That isn’t capitalism. Capitalism or more accurately free market would have let those banks fail. Free market is the only pure form of capitalism. Its also one of the few economic systems to have never been tried. (Communism and Socialism have both been tried on multiple occasions and failed each time, 100 million deaths in 20th century)

So next time, someone blames a failure on capitalism, ask them to define capitalism. If they give you the dictionary definition then its likely the failure is due to state intervention rather actual economic system factors.  Economies are complex and multi-faceted, if they are operated without government regulation and laws then they can be very stable because only an overreaching power could cripple an economy similar to 2008 and now in 2020.

Think for yourself.

Thanks for reading!

Check the Social Media

 

 

US Foreign Policy: Commander and Peace

One of my very favorite topics among the variety that history and politics provide, is foreign policy. The issues in foreign policy have long puzzled observers and political scientists alike. I will try to explain briefly the concepts by which foreign policy is conducted. I may also dive into the rich history of foreign policy. Sometimes, the best way to explain it is through situations that have occurred in the past. In this post, as promised, I will preview what Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will face in foreign policy affairs. The world has changed dramatically since early days after the Revolutionary war. The changes that can be seen even from World War 2 to the Cold War are tremendous. The US has always maintained an aggressive foreign policy with an isolationist tinge. Before diving into some of the issues of foreign policy, I need to explain some concepts.

The first concept is known as political theory. Political theory is rooted in ancient Greek philosophy and ancient roman politics. There are three theories that exist in today’s political world. First, Realism is the theory that says that states act in self interest and put security first. Realism is basically a theory of survival, its uses rational decision making to survive. This theory usually is best seen in early to mid 20th century during the World Wars.  The second theory is liberalism. Not to be confused with the Democratic party. Liberalism is the theory that people are by nature good and that non governmental organizations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organizations work together. Liberalism is basically a theory of unity and sovereignty among large groups that act similarly. In other words, its a collective society of people that make decisions on consensus. The best example is Woodrow Wilson and his Fourteen Points, this attempt at world peace just before World War 1 is an example of  liberalism theory. The last theory is Neoliberalism which builds on liberalism by adding that states are the main actors.

In addition to these theories which you read more about here, there are some terms which I may use that you should be familiar with. Here they are in a list form:

Actor: a person or state participating in international relations

Rational: A logical human or state decision maker

Irrational: An illogical human or state decision maker

Interest or Self interest: The pursues of an actor.

Preferences: The order of outcomes which an actor perceives a better outcome.

Collective: A group of decision makers

Interdependence: The dependence on two or more actors on each other. (usually States)

Power: the capabilities of an actor, the resources, and might.

Sovereignty: ability to make own decisions

National interests: State actions in relation to other states.

So now that the boring part is over, I hope that you learned something. Just keep in mind these words because they are important to remember when discussing foreign policy. You may hear pundits and other news sources say that America is the world’s police. You probably have heard about Benghazi and ISIS. I have written a post or two on terrorism because that is foreign policy, however it significantly changes the game that typical foreign policy dictates. Let’s start with one of the most controversial foreign policy challenges. The upcoming contest with China. As you may know, China is the world’s most populous nation with nearly a billion people. If you recall, Trump has taken an extremely hard stance on the situation with China.

The problem with China is that they have communist oligarchy with a state run capitalist economy. The Chinese also have acquired world power as recently as 2000. China is relatively poorer than the US. However, China’s increased economic production over the past 20 years has given it new world power. The Chinese have not been shy about wielding this power. The fact is that China doesn’t necessarily agree with the US all the time due to the difference in government. It is also a fact that the Chinese are interdependent on the US and vice versa. Part of the Chinese rise has come from selling manufactured products in the US market. The other part has come from China buying up US debt bonds. So whoever becomes President will have a tricky task trying to navigate the tight relationship that bounds the US and Chinese economies together.

Unfortunately for Trump and Clinton, it won’t be that easy to assuage China. Of many complicated situations that arise from China there are two specifically that are worth mentioning. President Obama has devoted much time to what many called the Asian Pivot. One of the part of this trade agreements with Asian countries. The Asian Pivot advances an American agenda into Asian countries surrounding China like Japan, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam. The economic benefits of such trade agreements with these countries is debatable. However, more important it leads to the second issue with the Chinese. China have developed in a similar fashion to the United States, a sphere of influence. The United States’ sphere of influence reaches global because of our past foreign policy exploits, in other words all the wars that we have fought won have further our sphere of influence. The Chinese sphere of influence is mainly all the countries that surround it. With the exception of Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, Tawian and others must deal with the power and interests of the Chinese. Japan might be the only country in the sphere that China has a hard time to bully. (long story short, Japan is a sworn enemy and its protection comes from the US exclusively)

Despite, the Chinese influence in these countries, the US still has been trying entice these countries to become closer US allies. President Obama has consistently pursue these trade agreements. As you can tell, the problem is that China and US will eventually clash because the interests of both states are at stake. The counter to this building tension in the eastern pacific is the economic ties that make both Chinese and US markets vulnerable. So what do you think that Trump or Clinton will bring to the table? Here is my opinion, for Trump I think he is a little ambitious with his plan to talk down to China. The Chinese really don’t mess around, they have been building up an a large navy. They aren’t afraid to use the US debt against us. Trump needs to tread carefully. He should in all probability follow President Obama’s lead and advance the Asian Pivot. The fortification of the countries surrounding China could act as an buffer to any Chinese aggression to expand their influence and power.

I know that based on Clinton’s secretary of state tenure that she will almost certainly build on the Asian Pivot. However, what worries me about Clinton is that her campaign support consist of corporations. These big money donors may or may not be involved some type of war contracting companies. Clinton would probably be interested in a potential escalation if it would help her reelection in the future. Now you can call me a skeptic and hater. However, let’s just quickly look back at the Iraq War. If I recall correctly, it was Dick Cheney who encourage George Bush to invade Iraq despite the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton, a military contractor and oil producer. I happen to know about his secret salary he collected during his tenure as Vice President. All I am saying with this little expose is that the preference order of politicians is often hidden. The way that self interest can dictate how a policy is formed and executed is one of the most interesting motives in politics.

I will end here, however, I want to continue to discuss different foreign policies and further apply and explain how they work within the context of international relations. So please stay tuned. Thanks for reading!!!

 

Dick Cheney Affecting Foreign Policy Issues for 2016.

Dick Cheney is a former Vice President serving for 8 years under former President George W. Bush. He served in congress for many years and even in the private sector as the CEO of Halliburton. The controversy surrounding the former Vice President circulates as the election heats up for the 2016 race. I recently read another blog detailing the situation in Syria with all the refugees pouring into countries like Germany and Australia. The author also goes into some brief history about why the situation in the middle east is like it is. In this post I want to expand on that history and highlight the importance of it to today’s political situation. The same situation that will presented to our next president. Dick Cheney has come into the news because of opinion on the Iran Deal. Cheney also has various backdoor deals that have gone bad and resulted in bad publicity and even legal action.  However, despite Cheney’s involvement in shady activities, he was still able to become a powerful icon in US foreign policy. In some respects, he changed the face of foreign policy all together.

From the beginning of Cheney’s political career he was always looking to move up the ladder. He went from volunteer to Vice President in a matter of 30 years. The most important movement of Cheney’s career was his appointment to Secretary of Defense by George H.W Bush. President Clinton ran against Cheney for election in 1993 into 1994. During his time as Secretary of Defense, Cheney made major changes to how the Department of Defense worked it budget and gave out contracts. Cheney decided it was more advantageous for the DOD to privatize the government’s defense contractors. At time that he left his post, the DOD was handing out more non-competitive contracts than competitive ones. The distinction is that usually private companies will bid with each other to get the contract. Where non competitive contracts are simply awarded to one company exclusively. Under Cheney’s oversight of the contracts become more relaxed. In other words, the money and deadlines became less important. The result would become what many scholars cite as war profiteering.

Dick Cheney was not in politics after a failed presidential run against Clinton. He shifted his talents found in the DOD to the private sector. Dick Cheney became the CEO of Halliburton in a quite convenient deal for both Cheney and Halliburton. ( A private company specializing in oil equipment and eventually war making) The circumstances of the deal closely reflect to what is known as a revolving door. (Switch from Public to Private sectors or vice versa) Cheney as CEO used his government connections to help make Halliburton and himself very rich. Within a span of five years, he took Halliburton from medium-sized oil drilling company to a massive multi-billion dollar corporation. Cheney did this amazingly all using taxpayer money via those government contracts. The contracts just so happen to be awarded to Halliburton.  Wikipedia’s footnotes are a good resource. (I have also researched extensively for a past research topic)

So that is all interesting but I am sure you’re wondering why this matters? Well it matters because he doesn’t stop after five years at Halliburton. As VP Cheney takes it to a whole new level. Not only does Cheney not stop working for Halliburton but he also helps push the US into the Iraq War–allegedly that is—.  Cheney made out like a bandit too. Let’s recap now, Cheney reinvented the DOD contracts and privatized all military production and services. He pushes the US into an expensive war costing trillions. Here’s the breakdown circa 2014. Here we are today facing another tough decision on Iran. Cheney has chimed in and come out against the Iran deal. Cheney has bashed Obama and any support for the deal because he favors boots on the ground, of course. Cheney is a basket of contradictions as this article points out. Cheney was the VP for 8 years and never wanted to invade Iran even though they had a nuclear program. For Cheney, this is the normal mode of operation, playing both sides until a clear winner emerges.

All of Dick Cheney’s past political moves for money and power have boiled down to a rock and a hard place for the American people. This year’s election will be a tough decision because foreign policy has been a weakness for both Bush and Obama. The complicated nature of foreign policy and international relations makes it impossible for one person to understand it all. Ideally the candidate that can cobble together a simplified yet workable foreign policy plan should be elected.  The debate is always about if it will work. The Iran deal is sure to go through giving Iran economic relief in exchange for reducing its nuclear ability. The problem for our next president will be how to keep Iran in line without starting a full-out nuclear war. The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are the ultimate destruction and they are the ultimate deterrent. The double standard of deadly and safety at the same time is a new concept. A concept only born 70 years ago. There is no comparison to any other time. There has never been a greater weapon known to man.

For each candidate running this year, whether it’s a democrat or republican or independent, they will have to contend with this issue. How does a candidate undo or try to fix what Dick Cheney has engineered over the past 15 years? Can it be fixed? The answers to these questions are unknown. In my political opinion I think there is a starting point. That starting point has to be with the government. The department of defense needs to be controlled. Their budgets need to be strictly managed and reviewed consistently. The DOD needs to be held accountable. Bottom line. War should not dictate policy. Policy making should always go the diplomatic route first. The goal is world peace yet the US often relies on war to get that goal. The irony is obvious. The problem with my political opinion is that it doesn’t quite fit into the republican point of view. Republicans believe that we need a strong and well-funded military. However, there is no reason why we can’t cut the HIGHEST defense spending in the world. (Twice as much as the next country)

Democrats would see this as great plan, especially someone like Bernie Sanders. The disagreement for me is what they would do with that money they cut. (Probably put into social programs–that aren’t necessary) If the democratic president were to say put that money into education, healthcare or social security I would be all for it.  But I feel like putting a leash on the DOD is the least that a candidate could do. Not to mention freeing up money in the budget. I think that every candidate is going struggle with foreign policy because it’s not an easy thing to understand. In all honestly, I’m scared of Donald Trump’s foreign policy, he might build a wall around the US and drop a nuke on China. (Shattering the world economy and creating havoc) But seriously, I hope Trump hires some professional foreign policy experts.

Dick Cheney’s story is one that needs to be heard. I think it’s an important lesson. A lesson that shows that no government is perfect. Corruption doesn’t just occur out of nowhere. Corruption is done by people. Cheney took trillions from taxpayers and they should know it. I will come just short of calling Cheney evil but this why I would urge all voters to pay attention. History does and will repeat itself. I’m hoping next repeat doesn’t result in a nuclear holocaust.

Thanks for reading! 9/11 14th anniversary article soon!