Of course, when the U.S. national-security state,
through the UN, imposes one more in a long series of sanctions against North
Korea, it’s considered to be no big deal, notwithstanding the fact that it’s
inevitably going to lead to the deaths of more North Korean citizens,
especially those barely on the margin between starvation and survival. North
Korean officials are expected to simply accept this new round of deaths, much
as Saddam Hussein and his regime were expected to meekly accept the deaths of
tens of thousands of deaths of Iraqi children every year from the brutal sanctions
that the U.S. national-security state enforced against Iraq for some 12 years.
If North Korea were to retaliate for the killing of
its citizens by sanctions, it’s not difficult to predict the response of the
president, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the major media, “We’ve been attacked! We
were just minding our own business! We’re innocent! The communists have
attacked us for no reason at all and they’re now coming to get us! Rally to
your national-security state! Support more militarization, war, spending, debt,
taxation, regulation, regimentation, and conformity! Support conscription of
your sons and daughters! The war will soon be over, even if China enters the
fray.”
Statists say that new rounds of sanctions against
North Korea are necessary to discourage North Korea from carrying out any more
nuclear tests.
Oh? How’s that been working out? Not too successful,
it seems. In fact, I don’t know of any regime, including that of Iran, that
likes to succumb to that sort of political pressure, even when their citizens
are being killed as part of it.
Notice, also, that no one in the mainstream press
focuses too closely on why it is that North Korea wants nuclear weapons. They
automatically accept the national-security state’s explanation — that North
Korea wants to engage in aggression.
But there is another possible reason: to deter a
U.S. invasion and occupation of North Korea with the intent of effecting a
regime-change operation, much as the U.S. national-security state did with
Iraq.
After all, North Korea hasn’t attacked anyone in the
last 60 years. As we all know, such cannot be said of the U.S.
national-security state.
Consider this paragraph from a recent article on the
Korean crisis in the New York Times:
It was
not the first time that North Korea had disrupted the park’s operation. It
blocked cross-border traffic three times in 2009, once for three days, out of
anger over joint military drills by South Korean and American troops. That
blockade was lifted when the military exercises ended.
So, what does the U.S. national-security state do in
2012? It does the same thing it did three years ago — it engages in military
exercises with South Korea. Why would it do that, knowing the reaction such
exercises provoked the last time they were conducted? Why would they engage in
conduct that they are certain is going to provoke another crisis? And how can
they be surprised when the crisis comes about, just like it did three years
ago?
On the subject of nuclear testing, perhaps U.S.
officials have forgotten what they were doing throughout the 1950s and 1960s.
Yes, engaging in nuclear testing, on land, in the sea, and underground. Why, my
recollection is that they were even using islands in the Pacific to test their
nuclear bombs. Indeed, according to Wikipedia, the U.S. government conducted
“around 1,054 nuclear tests (by official count) between 1945 and 1992.”
In fact, let’s not forget the reaction of the
Pentagon and the CIA to President Kennedy’s proposal to the Soviets for a
nuclear test-ban treaty. They hated his guts for it, even more than they
already did for his promise to the Soviet Union to never invade Cuba, another
long-time regime-change obsession of the Pentagon and the CIA, one whose
long-suffering citizenry has borne the brunt of U.S. sanctions for decades.
For one thing, at the time that Kennedy made his
proposal, Pentagon officials and CIA officials still were dreaming of a
first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, one that would take out every
major Soviet city, before the Soviets could achieve nuclear parity. For
another, they were absolutely convinced that the communists were coming to get
us and that Kennedy’s nuclear test-ban proposal (and his promise not to invade
Cuba) was effectively a surrender to the communists.
Unfortunately, that Cold War mindset has never
really been abandoned by either the Pentagon or the CIA. They’re still
convinced that the North Koreans are just sitting at their desks figuring out
how to invade, occupy, and conquer the United States, or at least how to get
the dominoes to start falling. The notion that the North Koreans are instead
figuring out how to defend against U.S. aggression never enters the minds of
Pentagon officials, CIA officials, and mainstream media reporters and
commentators who serve as their mouthpieces because they never view themselves
as the aggressors, not even when they invade such countries as Cuba, Iraq,
Grenada, Panama, and Afghanistan, and others that never attacked the United
States or effect regime-change operations through coups or assassinations, like
they did in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, and others that never attacked the United
States.
Ever since the end of World War II, the United
States has been embroiled in a constant series of crises and war, all of which
have served to send our nation down the road to financial and economic
bankruptcy and, even worse, have served to send our nation into the dark side
that characterizes totalitarian regimes, a dark side consisting of,
regime-change operations, coups, foreign aid to dictators, invasions,
occupations, wars of aggression, death squads, torture, secret prisons,
kangaroo tribunals, indefinite detention, and the like.
The Pentagon, the CIA, and the mainstream press have
sold it all to us as a necessary part of living in a “free” society and an
“unsafe” world. The truth is that it’s all because America has permitted the
national-security state apparatus, including its vast overseas empire of
military bases, such as those in Korea, to become a permanent fixture onto our
constitutional order. That’s the root of America’s foreign-policy woes, crises,
and wars.
About the author: Jacob G. Hornberger is the founder
and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
This article was published by The Future of Freedom
Foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment