You are herecontent / Pentagon Tightens Grip on the Obama Administration and the Intelligence Community
Pentagon Tightens Grip on the Obama Administration and the Intelligence Community
Pentagon Tightens Grip on the Obama Administration and the Intelligence Community
By Melvin A. Goodman | Truthout
If President Obama were truly interested in intelligence reform, he would have abolished the office of national intelligence and the position of intelligence czar or at least placed the DNI in civilian hands to counter the Pentagon's control of intelligence personnel and intelligence spending. The Pentagon already controls nearly 85 percent of the $70 billion intelligence budget and nearly 90 percent of the 100,000 intelligence personnel. Active duty and retired general officers now command nearly all of the major institutions of the intelligence community, although my 18 years on the faculty of the National War College confirmed my impression that military officers are not distinguished in the fields of strategic intelligence or geopolitical problem solving.
President Barack Obama's appointment of retired Gen. James Clapper as the director of national intelligence (DNI) demonstrates the Pentagon's enormous influence over the president and indicates that there is little likelihood of genuine reform of the hidebound intelligence community. Once again, the president has appointed a general officer to an important strategic position that should be in the hands of an experienced civilian who understands the need for change. President Obama has given retired generals the key positions of national security adviser, ambassadors to Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and DNI (on two occasions in a 17-month period) to career military officers. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is about to name a retired general who was responsible for special operations in Afghanistan as the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism. These career military officers are not known for strategic thinking, having been trained to focus on worst-case assessments of geopolitical problems. It is no wonder that there have few diplomatic successes during the Obama administration, that the State Department remains underused and without influence and that the humongous Pentagon budget remains largely untouchable. Read more.
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
"OBAMA 100: Trop Beau. Ce Président!
"Too handsome that president" was the conclusion of a French women’s magazine"
by Prof. Johan Galtung, disappearednews.com, May 18, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13791
As Prof. Galtung says, Obama is just a "cover up front" for the US empire, that is, the empire's top elites. It's a short article and recommendable, but I just read it for my first time around a half hour ago after coming across the following portion of an interview with him. This is a little over 5 minutes and I guess it's an excerpt from the full interview with him that Amy Goodman said will be posted later this week, or soon.
"Johan Galtung on "The Fall of the US Empire"", June 7, 2010
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/7/johan_galtung_on_the_fall_of
I snipped a little because it's repeated in the guest bio. anyway.
In his article at Global Research, he presents higher costs for the wars than the numbers DN! provided, around $1.45tn, and $2.353tn when including additional costs that Professor Michel Chossudovsky refers to or uses. $1tn is already high, but $1.45, so not considering the full costs, is nearly 50% more. $2.353tn is 135% more; above $1tn. And I tend to think that these are considerably significant differences.
Joseph Stiglitz said two or three years ago that the total costs would be around $3tn for the US, alone, and around $6tn when including the costs to other countries.
DN!'s seriously undercounting.
Not that the money is the most important issue to be concerned about with these wars, for the killed and destroyed human lives and destroyed and poisoned countries are definitely more important. And what this means for the political bodies and governments of the US and its war allies is also more important than money concerns. However, the costs nevertheless are an additional issue to certainly be concerned about; just that I wouldn't rank it as the top issue.
Some people would prefer to be rich and would be willing to commit or be complicit in murder for wealth, but I value life more than money. Yet we still need money to be able to live in societies that unfortunately are entirely (very nearly anyway) money-based. "No money? Then no food on the table", etcetera.