Propping Regimes that Finance Anti-American Terrorism Works to the Military Industrial Complex’s Advantage — another Manifestation of Manipulative Corporatism

© 2014 Peter Free

 

30 April 2014

 

 

When you wonder why the federal government appears to be incapable of working rationally in the public interest, follow the money

 

Has it every struck you as odd that the United States would eagerly give Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Pakistan boatloads of money and military equipment — even though all three nations go out of their ways to financially support the terrorists whom we are supposedly fighting to quell?

 

In a sense, we are paying our allies to continuing spawning the bad guys that we are (supposedly) trying to get rid of.

 

This is not rational behavior, unless the United States is not really trying to terminate terrorism, but instead is assisting corporations in profiting from its continuation and the quasi-imperialism that goes with it.

 

 

Take Kuwait, as an example

 

Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung recently pointed out that:

 

 

Kuwait, a U.S. ally whose aid to besieged Syrian civilians has been surpassed only by the United States this year, is also the leading source of funding for al-Qaeda-linked terrorists fighting in Syria’s civil war, according to Obama administration officials.

 

Until recently, tiny, oil-rich Kuwait avoided public scrutiny as attention to terrorist financing focused more sharply on Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

 

But the fact that those countries have made strides in addressing the problem, a senior Treasury official said, has “shed more light on the less forward-leaning steps taken in Kuwait.”

 

Until recently, public U.S. criticism has been tempered by the close diplomatic ties between the two governments and the fact that Kuwait is also by far the largest donor in the Gulf, and fifth in the world, of U.N.-coordinated humanitarian aid to Syria.

 

© 2014 Karen DeYoung, Kuwait, a U.S. ally on Syria, is also the leading funder of extremist rebels, Washington Post (25 April 2014)

 

John Glaser used DeYoung’s account as an introduction to his own examination of the irrationality of American policy:

 

 

Like most of Washington’s military and economic relationships with the Arab Gulf states, overriding geopolitical goals like maintaining U.S. hegemony and containing Iran outweigh concerns about Kuwait’s support for the kind of Islamic jihadists that have allegedly propelled the bulk of post-9/11 foreign policy.

 

The U.S. relationship with Kuwait consists of “mutual discussions in the event of a crisis; joint military exercises; U.S. evaluation of, advice to, and training of Kuwaiti forces; U.S. arms sales; prepositioning of U.S. military equipment; and U.S. access to a range of Kuwaiti facilities,” according to a recent Congressional Research Service report (CRS).

 

In 2004, “the Bush Administration designated Kuwait as a ‘major non-NATO ally (MNNA),’” a designation that “opens Kuwait to buy the same U.S. equipment that is sold to U.S. allies in NATO.”

 

“During 2003-2011,” according to CRS, “there were an average of 25,000 U.S. troops based in Kuwaiti facilities, not including those rotating into Iraq at a given time.” In 2012, then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta noted, “that there were about 13,500 U.S. troops in Kuwait.”

 

One would think it would be implicit in the U.S.-Kuwaiti relationship that Kuwait, as the recipient of all kinds of U.S. aid, privileges, and benefits, would refrain from supporting terrorist groups characterized as America’s greatest enemies by the highest Washington officials. And one would be wrong.

 

© 2014 John Glaser, How the US Supports Regimes That Support Terrorism, AntiWar.com (28 April 2014)

 

Glaser went on to make the same point about Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen and Pakistan.

 

 

Why?

 

Why do our right and left hands fight each other?

 

The customary reply is that the world is imperfect.  That response implies that we are perpetually caught between a rock and a hard place and must maneuver with the lack of freedom that the choiceless position implies.  However, that is too abbreviated a response to be trustworthy.

 

The world is imperfect, but allowing one’s allies to fund the killing of our own troops and otherwise create havoc is not one of the wrinkles that we need to reward with financial and military aid.  The purpose of both forms of assistance is ostensibly to keep allies and neutrals out of the fray — not to encourage them to continue fueling it.

 

 

Therefore, there is more going on to explain our cross-purposes policies than just worldly imperfection. Unless we want to admit that the American government is run by air-headed dopes.  Though this is a tempting hypothesis, it is not an accurate one.

 

 

The key is that . . .

 

De-supporting two-faced regimes would be less profitable for the corporations who benefit from American hegemony and war-making abroad.

 

Armed conflict benefits the Military Industrial Complex and the government folks who act as its self-profiting shills.

 

As John Glaser correctly observed:

 

 

U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has always been about maintaining dominance over the region, keeping the governments relatively weak and dependent (and undemocratic), and ensuring access to and control over the vast oil and gas resources of the region.

 

© 2014 John Glaser, How the US Supports Regimes That Support Terrorism, AntiWar.com (28 April 2014)

 

Our self-defeating war on terrorists quickly morphed into a profitable companion to oil-seeking and global control.

 

And this cross-purposes situation also benefits the autocratic regimes that fund anti-American terrorists.  Their support for jihad diverts attention from their own anti-Islamic transgressions.

 

 

The moral? — When something doesn’t make sense, follow the money and the oligarchical self-interest

 

Everyone benefits from two-faced, warmongering oligopoly, except the world’s metaphorical 99 Percent.

 

Viewed that way, I have to laugh at the Obama Administration’s (pre-2014 midterm election) attempts to convince Kuwait that its double-dealing will not be tolerated.

 

Where does the President want us to think he’s been for the last five years?