Posts: 3,038
Threads: 437
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
The Rise and Transformation of American Militarism and Imperialism after World War Two
By Andrés Barrera González, PhD in Political Science and Sociology, Profesor Titular at the University Complutense of Madrid.
Edited by: Joaquin Flores
Posted on October 28, 2015
http://syncreticstudies.com/2015/10/28/t...d-war-two/
Quote:As regards domestic developments in the USA over the second half of the 20th century, one can detect the exponential growth of the "military-industrial complex", whose interests are well served by legislators and officials at the different levels of government. Which as President Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech in 1961 might pose a big threat to the people, put in jeopardy the true national interest. In parallel, intelligence agencies gain prominence (and a much larger tranche of the national budget!) with the founding of the CIA in 1947, giving continuity to the tasks assigned to the Office of Strategic Services set up in 1942. Now, we have in place two of the pillars of a parallel, shadowy or invisible' government, that we will soon see pulling the strings and doggedly moulding the decision making process of the visible' legitimate government (Engelhardt, 2014). A parallel government, unelected and unaccountable to the people, that will not stop at anything in pursuing their hidden agendas, as it is demonstrated by the conspiracy to get rid of President John F Kennedy, and other key public figures and government officials after him, his brother Robert included (Douglass, 2008).
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Joseph Fouche
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 81
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2012
What I find truly amazing about these historical rememberances is the complete omission of the FBI's SIS.
The Special Investigative Service. It was thru this service, which was disbanded at the end of WWII as the OSS was being converted to the CIA, the Hoover and the FBI had assets and intel within the Western Hemisphere which greatly influenced the intelligence and in-country situation for many years to come.
The creation of the CIA then was also instrumental in removing Hoover's official capacities and desires for the SIS in favor of a different "good-old-boys" network which were instrumental in assisting thousands of Nazis escape Europe for the southern part of the Western Hemisphere and re-establish the military as the spearhead of the USA's intelligence efforts. This should provide some insight into the thought that Hoover was most definitely not an insider to the assassination but an unwilling participant afdter the fact.
Americans remain the most vastly unaware group of citizens on the planet all in the name of baseball, apple pie and bailouts.
New Insights into J. Edgar Hoover's Role
The FBI and Foreign Intelligence
G. Gregg Webb…
One of the most interesting, but least documented, chapters in the history of the FBI
is the experience of its Special Intelligence Service (SIS) during World War
II. Established in 1940, the FBI's SIS was the first foreign-intelligence
bureaucracy in US history, created years before the Central Intelligence Agency
and even before the Agency's forerunner, William "Wild Bill"
Donovan's Office of Strategic Services (OSS).
Postwar Proposal
As SIS successes mounted,so did Hoover's confidence in the field of foreign-intelligence andcounterintelligence work. Indeed, by December 1944, Hoover was bold enough topropose a "world-wide intelligence system" for after the war thatwould be administered by the FBI and organized like the SIS. Even though there is little evidence to suggest that Hoover actually enjoyedthe SIS's sensitive foreign-intelligence work, he could recognize a promisinginstitutional model when he saw one and he clearly valued the SIS as a vehiclefor expanding both his own power and the postwar influence of the FBI. Hisproposal marked a clear departure from his early reservations over the SIS andhis responsibility for it.
Alas,Hoover's ambitions in the field of foreign intelligence were to go unfulfilled.His plan was dismissed outright by both Donovan, Hoover's rival and the authorof a separate plan for a postwar intelligence structure, and President HarryTruman. The FBI was passed over in the postwar reshuffling of the intelligencecommunity. The product of this bureaucratic free-for-all was the new andindependent Central Intelligence Group (CIG) that came into being bypresidential directive on 22 January 1946. The fledgling agency, under thedirection of Rear Adm. Sidney Souers, had global jurisdiction and replacedentirely the FBI's Secret Intelligence Service in Latin America.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Posts: 564
Threads: 13
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jul 2015
Thanks for sharing this eye-opener, Mr. Rigby, President Eisenhower did his very best to warn about the prevailing state.
Posts: 3,038
Threads: 437
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Who's in Control? Obama or the generals?
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
Published time: 16 Nov, 2015 14:39
Edited time: 16 Nov, 2015 19:41
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/322307-us-oba...g20-putin/
Quote:What we may be seeing in US policy is competing agendas. The diplomatic track appears to be favored by the White House and State Department as a more efficacious way of achieving regime change against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad. But the Pentagon, and specifically the CIA, has its own militarist schemes, even if that means providing weapons to terror groups with much greater fire power and risking a proxy war with Russia.
The upshot is that US foreign policy is dangerously all over the place because of competing power players within Washington. The disturbing conclusion is that the American president and his State Department are simply not in control. It's like watching a driver of an articulated truck whose grip on the wheel has no steering.
A deep, darker state within the official state is by no means a new concept to describe American government and its foreign policy. More than 50 years ago, President John F. Kennedy was so perplexed by CIA covert operations undermining him on Cuba and Vietnam that he declared he would "smash it into a thousand pieces." That intention probably cost Kennedy his life at the hands of the deep state and its military-industrial complex.
Today, it is very doubtful that any American politician would have the courage or conviction to pull rank on the military-industrial complex. The latter appears to be more assertive and belligerent than ever, as can be seen from the seemingly irrational contradictions of US foreign policy on Russia and Syria. And that unaccountable power-play makes for a highly dangerous dynamic.
Washington often proclaims that it is "protecting the world". The truth is that the world needs protecting from the US whose foreign policies are increasingly reckless and beyond any democratic control.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Joseph Fouche
|
