The decision at the NATO summit to establish a command center in Germany demonstrates the sovereignty of the MIC militarists, who can move the headquarters of their powerful tool NATO out of the reach of the US government overnight. Even a possible President Trump will not be able to stop them from further escalating in Ukraine. The priority of this option is underlined by the fact that the core task of the Wiesbaden command center is to coordinate arms deliveries to the Ukrainian military.
It is high time for Europe's citizens and journalists to realize that influential militarists have dramatically changed the balance of power to the detriment of the old continent: First, the alleged American "nuclear shield" is evaporating into thin air, since if Trump cannot end the war in Europe, he will certainly keep the US out of it. Secondly, the stationing of medium-range missiles in Germany, which has also been decided, offers a very questionable deterrent against Russian first strikes – but certainly provides new priority targets for Russian pre-emptive strikes and counterattacks.
This threatening perspective corresponds to the actual aim behind NATO’s foundation in 1949, which was openly confessed by its first Secretary General, Lord H. l. Ismay in his early career - “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Meanwhile, vast evidence has accumulated, that even this statement does not reflect the full truth.The alleged aim of "keeping the Americans in" was by no means seriously pursued. The predominantly peace-loving American citizens were never consulted before "their" forces were ordered into battle. This could be seen in World War I, when President Woodrow Wilson, after winning re-election in 1916 with the slogan "He kept us out of war," made the United States a decisive participant in the war just five months later.
But the growing gap between the real interests of the American nation and the actions of its supposed security apparatus has a broader and deeper context, a context of principles and even of good versus evil. This nation, after its independence, became a model for the whole world. Especially in Europe, more and more countries freed themselves from the rule of aristocrats and introduced democracy.
Millions of people had emigrated to America and within a few generations had adopted a new identity. The successful construction of the American nation was based mainly on the strong common goal of living in freedom and on a remarkable willingness of immigrants from all European countries to integrate. A fair market economy also contributed to this success, through which the United States became the leading country in the world.
This peaceful spread of the two integrating ideas of free democracy and fair market economy was historically pre-programmed. Under undisturbed conditions, the development would have led primarily to the democratic United States of Europe. - This idea was propagated repeatedly, including by the Frenchman Victor Hugo. A vision of global integration beyond America and Europe was also emerging on the horizon. In Japan in particular, a great openness to both European culture and American freedom had developed by the first years of the 20th century.1)
But this development was sabotaged by unsolidary forces with mainly British roots, who had a completely different vision of a desirable world order. With devastating historical consequences, the influence of these undemocratic circles was able to grow without entering the consciousness of citizens and triggering the appropriate concern and rejection. In this way, a double paradigm shift for the worse could take place in American politics.
One affected the economy and brought about a replacement of the dynamic, fair market economy of the founding years and its gradual replacement by the rule of privileged, oligopolistic large corporations and a powerful banking system. Most people had no idea of the increasing influence of lobbyists, private media and "charitable" organizations. Even less were they aware that all this was happening for the benefit of a non-solidary, wealthy minority, "the people who own society," as the social critic Noam Chomsky called them. It was only with the recent corona pandemic that a growing number of citizens, journalists and politicians began to recognize that this influence was directed against the interests of the free, democratic nations.
With a short delay, big money’s even more threatening influence on the security apparatus of the military, intelligence services and law enforcement agencies is also entering the public consciousness. Historically, this awareness comes at the last minute, after the threat has assumed dangerous dimensions - that of a Third World War.
In early 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower was reportedly the first high-ranking politician to publicly warn about these unconstitutional influences., targeting in particular the so-called MIC, the military-industrial complex of leading figures in the military, defense industry and politics. But for centuries, also the financial establishment has been involved in every major military activity. In Britain in particular, private banks regularly financed the wars waged by the aristocracy.
In fact, it was not Eisenhower who first warned against the undemocratic influence of these forces, but US Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, who declared: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." Our Western civilization would not have fallen into its current disastrous state if the well-considered warnings of Jefferson and other liberals of his time were still part of the political consciousness of citizens.
Cuba constitutes another example of the historical paradigm shift that was initiated by polarizing, narcissistic militarists without any harmonious and fair vision. As in the Philippines, the US military engagement took place in the context of political currents among the locals to free themselves from Spain. And likewise, this liberation led neither to an independent free democracy nor to a new US state joining with enthusiasm - although such ambitions existed and only should have been supported.
When Cuba was finally granted limited independence in 1902, the inhabitants were insufficiently prepared for freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Fidel Castro managed to use the unstable situation for a communist takeover. The US military, which had even fought against alleged communists in all parts of the world, failed to do so on its doorstep in Cuba and left Castro unchallenged. (The CIA-planned “Bay of Pigs Invasion” of 1961 with fewer than 1,500 troops can be seen as a bad joke and a fake military intervention. In fact, about a hundred times more troops would have been needed to ensure a quick success.
All these irrational violations of the interests of the American nation were the late effects of never correcting the loss of democratic control over the military and its actions during the Spanish-American War in the Philippines.2) Following the simple rule of self-reinforcement, the power and independence of the security apparatus from the state and nation could grow steadily. Since the Civil War (1861-1865), the U.S. military and intelligence agencies had more than one and a half centuries to develop into a state within the state, more precisely, an autocratic structure within the free democratic society. The interests of the increasingly independent security apparatus inevitably evolved toward a priority for increasing its own power - while the “national security” proclaimed at any opportunity was in danger of degenerating to a hollow phrase used to collect tax money for the arms industry.
Search The Blogs | The Blogs (timesofisrael.com), open the text and scroll to section 3.
2)https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/geschichte/guerillakrieg-amerikas-suendenfall/1467292.html