The Madness of Militarism

24 min readJan 30, 2017

“Turns out I’m really good at killing people.”

Why has no one protested the Endless War prosecuted by Obama throughout his entire presidency?

I remember the feelings I had when I watched the inauguration of President Obama in 2009. It felt like I was a part of history. There was an enthusiasm I hadn’t felt for quite some time.

9/11 was still haunting America; we had been at war for just over seven years; we had been through the incompetence of Bush, the hubris and sinister villainy of Cheney and his cabal; disaster capitalism had become a cottage industry; there were war profiteers, private military contractors and Wall Street reigned supreme. Ethical pretense was now openly discarded in favor of thinly veiled obfuscation; Government officials were held in contempt of Congress; the Executive Branch outed a CIA agent for political retribution; columnists, broadcasters and embedded journalists alike were reporting on unconfirmed and even fraudulent information. We saw the unfolding of debacles like Enron, WMD’s, Abu Ghraib, Valerie Plame, Katrina. Then, mortgage-backed securities became the catalyst to the financial crisis and the Great Recession. It was the decade of disaster and the 2008 election couldn’t have come quick enough. Yet, amidst all the uncertainty, there was a freshman senator from Illinois who had a special charisma and real change was seemingly afoot. Most importantly, he brought hope, or so it seemed.

Throughout his campaign, Obama hit on the nerve of a war weary populous promising to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He laid out his intention for a transparency in government that had never been seen before. He repeatedly called out the incumbent administration for its warrantless surveillance and married his opponents, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, to the war party who had gotten it so very wrong in Iraq. His vision to work with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenal and move towards a nuclear free world came with a collective sigh of relief.

Now 8 years later, I am truly wondering when the ether will wear off; when will folks awaken to the fact that none of that actually happened. As it turns out, the “Yes, We Can” President would have been more aptly named, had we called him the “Yes, We Coulda” President… he should’ve been the president he promised he would be.

One cannot help notice the many contradictions and ironies of the Obama presidency. Starting three weeks before he had even won the election, Obama received Advertising Age’s Marketer of the Year award for 2008. One of the 750 sponsors of the award said, “I think he did a great job of going from a relative unknown to a household name, to being a candidate for president.” In case you’re wondering, Apple came in second. Another said, “Not only did Obama establish himself as the leading ‘brand’ in the US electoral process, he quickly became an iconic label all over the world with his slogan of ‘change we can believe in’.”

It would only be 9 months into his presidency that he would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The Committee placed special emphasis on Obama’s “vision of and work for a world free from nuclear weapons.” Nobel’s press release went on to read, “Showing himself to be a strong spokesman for human rights and democracy…” going on, “as President, he called for a new start to relations between the Muslim world and the West based on common interests and mutual understanding and respect.” I can only imagine how understood and respected Muslims must feel worldwide as Obama leaves office. It looks like Nobel might have jumped the gun just a little… or maybe talking the talk is all that’s required of a Peace Laureate these days; walking the walk is completely optional.

The Madness of Militarism

“I never intend to become adjusted to the madness of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence, for in a day when Sputniks and explorers are dashing through outer space and guided ballistic missiles are carving highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can win a war. It is no longer the choice between violence and nonviolence; it is either nonviolence or non-existence. And the alternative to disarmament, the alternative to a greater suspension of nuclear tests, the alternative to strengthening the United Nations and thereby disarming the whole world, may well be a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation. And I assure you that I will never adjust to the madness of militarism.”

These were the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr just a few weeks before receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1964, which he so richly deserved. And yes, Obama campaigned vigorously against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and those supporting them. He vilified Hillary Clinton for voting in favor of the war. In fact, she was forced to apologize in an effort to change the public’s perception that she was FOR the war (which of course she was). In the general election, he hammered John McCain on the war and was successful at aligning McCain with Bush. Yet when we look at the last eight years, there is a distinct difference in what Obama promised and what happened. Now in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, we are at war in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. We maintain military bases in 1,000 locations around the globe. Back in 2009, JSOC and SOCOM special forces were operating in 60 countries but are now conducting operations in at least 138, or 70% of the world’s countries.

In a “scramble” for Africa, many countries including China are vying for access to resources and political influence. It could be said that Obama has prosecuted a preemptive soft invasion of Africa, putting AFRICOM forces on the ground in almost half of its countries to mark his territory and stave off potential future competition. I wonder what Dr. King would say about the first African American president and his military invasion of the African continent?

Unfortunately for Obama, his legacy will also be inexorably linked to Clinton. As Secretary of State during his first term, Hillary’s lack of integrity was only exceeded by her acerbity; her bellicose pedigree was given the stamp of approval by militarist mentors like Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright. Using her unique skill set, she successfully exploited Obama’s inexperience with American adventurism in her intended assault on the Middle East beginning with Libya, which would ultimately lead to her undoing. At the time, however, she was praised, applauded even. On the first day of bombing, adulator Ann-Marie Slaughter gushed about her ability to convince Obama to follow France’s lead and bomb Libya, writing, “Bravo! I cannot imagine how exhausted you must be after this week, but I have NEVER been prouder of having worked for you. Turning POTUS around on this is a major win for everything we have worked for.” One might say that in Libya she would prove unequivocally that a woman can be a warmonger just as good as any man; like a newly trained sniper getting their first kill, she cackled at hearing the news of Qaddafi being tortured and killed on video, exclaiming “we came, we saw, he died, hahaha.” Libya became an utter humanitarian tragedy. Pride isn’t exactly what comes to mind. Since Vietnam, many soldiers have worn pocket patches that read, Kill for Peace; we were now calling these types of military actions, Responsibility to Protect (R2P). (Ref: US State Dept FOIA Case Number, F-2014–20439; sorting by date, pg. 761; Subject: BRAVO!, March 23, 2011)

Kill for Peace — Humanitarian Intervention

Libya was the quintessential “rags to riches, to rags again” story. One of the poorest countries in Africa in 1967, Qaddafi turned it into the richest and most successful nation in Africa. In 2011, Unicef ranked Libya 64 out of 185 countries worldwide on the Human Development Index with the lowest infant mortality and longest life expectancy of any country in Africa. They were a beacon among Arab countries for Gender equality, eliminating discrimination and providing women’s education and voting rights and protection from gender based violence. They provided nearly universal access to free health services and free education, including a $5,000 bursary paid to women at the birth of a child. Their literacy rate of 87% (25% who earned college degrees) was higher than some parts of Europe. But after 26,000 bombing sorties, Libya was turned into a pile of rubble. As the bombs were falling, Obama, in a White House briefing, said it was “a limited humanitarian intervention, not war.” But a humanitarian intervention it was not.

As revealed in Unclassified State Department emails, released through dozens of Freedom of Information Act court orders throughout 2015 and 2016 (US State Dept FOIA Case Numbers, F-2014–20439, F-2015–04841,), the Libyan intervention was clearly State sponsored regime change under the cover of R2P. Qaddafi had planned to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa by establishing “a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar [backed by 143 tons of gold]. This plan was designed to provide these countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA) [and the Euro],” in a bid to end external exploitation of African resources. There is even strong evidence that Qaddafi made known his intentions to nationalize the Libyan oil industry, taking control away from US and International Oil Companies (IOC) by giving it to the Libyan people. The long and well documented history of the CIA, starting with its sponsored coup in Guatemala on behalf of United Fruit Company (1954), reminds us that the United States has never tolerated a country returning ownership of its natural resources to its people. That’s a capital offense in the CIA’s tribunal of international justice.

Some have also suggested that once Qaddafi agreed to give up his nuclear weapons program (something he regretted soon after), that it would only be a matter of time before the United States would move against the regime and him personally. Let that be a cautionary tail for countries like Ukraine who were “invited” to sign at Budapest in 1994, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, whereby they agreed to dismantle their nuclear weapons in exchange for security and cooperation in the event of a future threat. One could only imagine how seriously Putin viewed the United States’ betrayal of Libya as it related to his proximity to the Ukraine.

Just 8 days into the Libyan bombing campaign however, French President Nicolas Sarcozy became “concerned about continuing radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) infiltrating the US/NATO backed National Libyan Council (NLC) and its military command. Quoting a “Source” in an email from Clinton confidante, Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton on March 27, he wrote, “Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander [US/NATO-backed rebels, imbedded with Al Qa’ida fighters] stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting.” Sarcozy was increasingly concerned about ‘post-Qaddafi Libya,’ “the level of influence AQIM [Al Qa’ida] and other terrorist groups have inside the NLC and the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the rebel leadership.” (Ref: US State Dept FOIA Case Number, F-2015–04841; sorting by date, pg. 1; Subject: H: LOTS OF NEW INTEL; POSSIBLE LIBYAN COLLAPSE, SID, March 26, 2011)

In another email from Blumenthal, he wrote to Clinton on April 1 that Qaddafi’s move to establish a new monetary plan in Africa was “one of the factors that influenced Sarkozy’s decision to attack Libya.” Blumenthal went on to say, “Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues: a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production, b. Increase French influence in North Africa, c. Improve his [internal] political situation in France, d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.” (Ref: US State Dept FOIA Case Number, F-2014–20439; sorting by date, pg. 776; Subject: H: FRANCE’S CLIENT & Q’S GOLD. SID, April 1, 2011)

There was no mention of humanitarian intervention (R2P). See below:

One would need to be in a serious level of denial to dismiss this piece of evidence — a veritable Smoking Gun

For those that don’t know, Libya has been referred to as, “the cork on the bottle of Africa.” Just like the agreement reached when Turkey demanded that Brussels pay 5 billion euros in aid to keep migrants from crossing Turkish borders into Europe, Qaddafi had negotiated an agreement with Italy to stem the flow of illegal African immigration through Libya into the Mediterranean. In effect, Libya’s destruction was like the lid of Africa being torn off. Qaddafi protested the bombing as foolishly shortsighted, predicting refugees would flood over their borders and into Europe. To anyone paying attention, the human tragedy laid bare any notion that so-called feminist Hillary Clinton was truly concerned about women’s rights, for the destruction in its early weeks displaced nearly 300,000 women and children alone. And where were these people to go? In the ensuing chaos, the borders of Libya began to leak like a sieve as predicted. Libyan citizens and displaced peoples from many regions of Africa began to move through Libya and into the Mediterranean. Obama can’t say he wasn’t warned, so placing the blame for the refugee crisis squarely on his shoulders would be putting it where it belongs… presently Human Rights Watch estimates there are nearly 800,000 migrants still being detained there indefinitely. At the time of this writing, a new $200 million border security aid package is being ironed out between Italy and Libya’s PM, Fayez al-Sarraj to again halt the flow of migration into Europe from Libya and Tunisia.

Italy paid Qaddafi “reparations” of 5 billion in 2008 to help stem the flow of refugees into Europe

According to Frederic Wehrey, a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment’s Middle East program, “Libyans are incredibly disenchanted with life,” Really? Aren’t they grateful for our intervention? Wehrey has made several trips to Libya since 2011, and added, “many have become so frustrated by insecurity and instability that they have expressed regret about taking part in the revolution. Some even wish for a return to the relative stability of Qaddafi’s rule.”

Clinton’s now infamous “Tick Tock on Libya” email provides the public with a timeline chronologizing Qaddafi’s overthrow and murder at the hands of the Secretary of State of the United States under Obama. The context reveals the email was to serve as Clinton’s (referred to here as “S”) foreign policy curriculum vitae by providing a “tick tock” of events that listed off the bragging rights for what she considered was her crowning foreign policy achievement to date, “it shows ‘S’ leadership/ownership/stewardship of [US] Libya policy,” and outlines talking points where she claims credit for directing all of the play by play. It’s doubtful she fully appreciated that the “crowning” she would ultimately receive would be wrapped in the moniker, Queen of Chaos and the Clinton Doctrine of “smart power” would end in utter disaster. (Ref: US State Dept FOIA Case Number, F-2014–20439; sorting by date, pg. 930; Subject: TICK TOCK ON LIBYA, August 21, 2011)

“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Marx

We’ve now been seeing this so-called farce repeating in Syria, where there is also ample evidence that like in Libya, the US supported Syrian opposition, Fateh al-Sham is actually the formerly known Nusra Front of Al Qa’ida and has been receiving weapons from the United States to support our proxy war against the Shia government of Assad. Obama’s relationship with the Sunni leadership of both Saudi Arabia and Qatar is of grave concern as their human rights abuses are overlooked simply because we share similar goals in the Middle East and a hatred for the predominantly Shia Iran. So long as it is useful or consistent to our long-range vision, the United States doesn’t care who it aligns with even if that alignment is ISIS or Al Qa’ida. For example, it is clear from her communications with John Podesta, that as Secretary of State, Clinton was aware that the Saudis were supporting ISIS rebels. Yet, the Saudis were rewarded with $115 Billion in weapons through Clinton’s State Department, more than any other administration in history. This is the country that executes gays, stones women to death and recently admitted to Amnesty International of its use of the indiscriminate cluster bombs in Yemen, which are currently banned by more than 100 countries; and to top it off, their complicit involvement in 9/11 is all but forgotten as well.

More to the point, a geopolitical strategy that weakens Iran by eliminating one of its allies and our thirst for the region’s resources are what’s driving the US agenda in Syria. In fact, it was just after Assad’s rejection of the Qatar — Turkey pipeline in 2009 that our agenda pivoted to regime change in a remarkably disastrous attempt to repeat the 1949 overthrow by the CIA of Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, who like Assad, was reluctant to approve an American project to build the Trans Arabian Pipeline. The Qatar — Turkey pipeline, “would have transported Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia.” Is it any wonder why Russia would partner with Iran to aid Assad in his fight with the American supported rebels? This was yet another example of how Clinton’s blundering foreign policy indiscretions always seem to blow up in her face. The as yet inchoate triad had common goals, both regional and self-serving and Clinton’s strategy simply drove them closer together.

Speaking of common goals and self-interest, it is also no secret that during this time Secretary Clinton was strongly advocating for regime change in Syria. Obama was resistant to a point, waiting for a “reason” to go in. In 2013, a reason materialized when reports that chemical weapons had been used on civilians emerged, but Obama still hesitated. Maybe because the attacks looked fake. Faked or real, they had the intended effect. The joint chiefs ordered intensive contingency planning for a possible ground invasion of Syria whose primary objective would be the elimination of chemical weapons. Something gave him pause. Determining exactly who used the chemical weapons was unclear; some of the evidence was dubious even. Reluctant to put boots on the ground without clear attribution, he decided to delay to let Congress weigh in and instead began intensive bombing in support of the moderate (Al Qa’ida embedded) rebel opposition.

Remember though, Saudi Arabia had given between 10 and 25 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation, second only to Ukraine and Sheikh Al-Amoudi and the State of Kuwait each gave between 5 and 10 million dollars. In addition, “Friends of Saudi Arabia”, the State of Qatar, United Arab Emirates, the Sultans of Oman and Brunei and two prominent Saudi families, Al-Rashid and Zayed all gave between 1 and 5 million to her Foundation. All these donations (at least 27 million but as much as 80 million) were from Sunni Arabs whose arch enemies are the Shia’s in power in Syria and Iran and who also have an interest in the natural gas markets in Central Asia and Europe, which are currently being supplied by Russia. Hmmm.

Indeed, by removing Assad, Qatar would be in position to “inherit” a natural gas market through Syria; the one serving as a strategic revenue source for Russia. The economic threat to Russia alone was significant. As was the case in Libya, her continued position (right up to the election) was for a no-fly zone, which is doublespeak for regime change, and even if it led to an armed conflict with Russia, not intervening in Clinton’s view would be worse. Even if the situation, to use her words, “…becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.” The risk it would seem would be worth it, for in a 2013 speech she gave to Goldman Sachs she said quote, “To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So, our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk — you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.” Her “prelude” of a no-fly zone in Libya worked so well, why not repeat in Syria the patterned formula for proven “success.” Once again, calling for “humanitarian intervention,” using means that could hardly be deemed humanitarian, has thus far contributed to a death toll from the Syrian War of just under half a million; while 4.8 million have fled the country, leaving behind 6.3 million internally displaced and 13 million requiring humanitarian assistance.

Are there any clearer examples of our propensity for xenophobic tendencies than the ones exhibited by this imperialistic pursuit of uni-polar dominance over Middle Eastern cultures?

While most people might feel a great sense of American pride that our dear leader Obama was a Nobel Laureate for Peace, they are quite surely unaware of his war record. As physical violence was so clearly at the center of Obama’s foreign policy, Dr. King’s words it would seem, were lost on Our Peace Laureate war-loving president. And from this policy of physical violence sprang so many other forms of violence and the mechanisms and machinery required to make violence…

…like his policy shift that began in 2011 to modernize our nuclear arsenal to the tune of an estimated one trillion dollars. Now, in order to avoid violating existing non-proliferation treaties the Obama administration took up a plan to refit existing low-yield weapons systems, like the B61–12, to make them more lethal and more accurate; yes, enhancing tactical nuclear weapons delivery.

Bringing the unthinkable into the realm of thinkable…

By upgrading the targeting capability, it was determined that more accurate, lower yield devices would be more effectively used in bunker busting and other tactical scenarios, i.e. small or limited engagements. Now there’s an idea: Limited Tactical Nuclear War. To the grave concern of the many who work and theorize in the field of arms control, this logic was designed to bring the unthinkable into the realm of thinkable. And it brings new meaning to the term, progressive liberal democracy.

Referring to his signature Drone Assassination Program, Obama told aids that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people,” adding, “I Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” As the program has killed as many as 4,700 people, mostly innocent civilians including 100’s of children, it confounds the mind that over his daughters’ apparent crush on the Jonas Brothers, he had the bile to joke about using a drone on them, saying, “I have two words for you… Predator… Drones… you will never see it coming.” Making light of something so deadly is a breathtaking display of the macabre. I wonder how the media would’ve responded if Trump had said that? Obama talks a good talk but why has he been in many regards so immune to criticism.

The so-called “Pivot to Asia,” brought about a significant realignment of strategic forces by positioning two-thirds of the US Navy in the South China Sea and the surrounding region and is considered a veritable failure by many foreign policy experts. For the second time in Obama’s presidency, overt actions that threaten and antagonize the other nuclear world powers are leading to heightened and increasing danger of conflict. Some say our ultimate fight will be with China, so dividing Russian and Chinese alignment and siding with Russia is crucial to the strategy.

One good look at a map of the 1,000 military bases that surround the Middle East and Asia makes it readily apparent, what our strategic interests are about and where those lie. The majority form an arc encircling Russia, Iran and the rest of the Middle East, Central Asia and Asia. Add to that the flotilla of Carrier Battle Groups sailing through the Arabian Sea and the Asia-Pacific region and one can expect that tensions will be high and the risks of conflict are even higher.

Approximately 1,000 U.S. Military Installations Worldwide — Graphic by 5W Infographics

We also can’t ignore Obama’s new world record of $280 billion in weapons sales worldwide, more than any other president, exceeding even George W. Bush’s previous record; $115 billion of that remember was sold to Saudi Arabia, which again was the most ever in the history of that relationship.

It is quite a contradiction that a Nobel Laureate at the beginning of his term would be awarded the Pentagon’s Medal of Distinguished Service at the end of his presidency…

…however, fulfilling the obligations placed on the president to protect our country doesn’t alleviate the ethical responsibility to decline an award he clearly hadn’t earned and ultimately wasn’t ever going to deserve. In the alternative, could he have found the courage to live up to the honor bestowed on him and the faith expressed by the Nobel Committee by reaching for the very vision he espoused, indeed promised us all not so long ago? Yes, he coulda. He also coulda given it back on January 19th.

Dr. King asserts, “…there are some things in my own nation, and there are some things in the world, to which I am proud to be maladjusted and to which I call upon all men of goodwill to be maladjusted until the good society is realized.”

Yet our dear “Janus” Obama, a fellow Nobel Laureate, was at war for all 2,920 days of his eight years as president… that is also a first in presidential history. Just in his last 365 days, Obama had a personal best by dropping 26,172 bombs over seven countries. Even at 72 bombs a day, the Council on Foreign Relations believes that to be an underestimate. As we mentioned above, he reportedly boasted to senior aides in 2011, “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” Gosh, we didn’t either.

Endless War… and its Environmental Cost

As he did with so many things, Obama quite often boasted over his support of the environment and his efforts to establish meaningful “Climate Change” policy. Displayed prominently on the White House website, he clearly made this one of his key legacy issues. In this area, however, he has once again built his legacy on a foundation made of sand.

Seeing the cold hard reality of the president’s stance on Endless War, it is hard to imagine that any serious consideration was ever really given to so-called Climate Change if there is such as a thing; the two are in fact, diametric opposites. They have two competing agendas. War and Capitalism, on the other hand are congruent agendas... and isn’t capitalism also a direct threat to the environment the way that war is? One might also argue that war is a natural extension of capitalism… or even that capitalism is a form of war.

Isn’t war at its essence an assault on humanity and habitat? Therefore, isn’t war at the very heart of environmental issues?

Indeed, if one is concerned about our environment, then attention should be paid to the biggest polluters, should it not? The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of energy, petroleum, jet fuel, gasoline, and if we are measuring, the largest emitter of CO2 in the world. More than 80% of the energy consumption by U.S. federal agencies comes from the Department of Defense and it is estimated that the U.S. Armed Forces contribute to upwards of 20 to 30 percent of current global warming emissions. They dump more toxic and radioactive waste, pollute more oceans and groundwater and make more air pollution than any other institution worldwide.

According to Barry Sanders, author of The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism, “the greatest single assault on the environment, on all of us around the globe, comes from one agency… the Armed Forces of the United States.”

Military Spending is Commensurate to Global Emissions — Courtesy of SIPRI

In the first 4 years of the Iraq War (2003–2007), 141 million metric tons of CO2 were emitted… and according to Oil Change International, “If the war was ranked as a country in terms of emissions, it would emit more CO2 each year than 139 of the world’s nations do annually.” Therefore, it seems odd that the very same people who aggressively express concern about CO2 emissions, also support US foreign intervention, regime change and Progressive International Relations promoting “Democracy”.

Rebuilding the schools, hospitals, bridges, roads, businesses and homes in Iraq, Syria and other Middle Eastern countries we’ve bombarded requires millions of tons of cement which is one of the largest industrial sources of so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

All this and yet, there is little talk of reducing the carbon footprint of the military. On the contrary, the Pentagon and the US Armed Forces, have been exempted from all measurement and reduction requirements in all previous international climate policy up until the Paris’ COP21 agreement. The Paris agreement does not obligate countries to cut military emissions and doesn’t mention the military specifically. In fact, the word “military” does not even appear among the nearly 35,000 words found in the document. Nevertheless, Obama by executive order, has exempted the Pentagon from any of its requirements. How is it possible that nearly everyone is unaware of this fact?

H. Patricia Hynes of the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice calls it lunacy that, “the US military, perversely consumes fossil fuel beyond compare to any other institutional and per capita consumption, in order to preserve strategic access to oil.”

Also remember, at over $250 billion in annual sales, we are the world’s leading exporter of weapons and as such we are the leading exporter of greenhouse gas emitting technologies, equipment and hardware and the corresponding toxic pollutants associated with their use. Translated, we are the leading exporter of death and destruction.

Curiously, we have people who have dedicated their lives, working to bring awareness to the climate discussion, to effect meaningful change. It is an issue seen sometimes daily, certainly weekly in the news. For instance, Dakota Pipeline protestors have suffered through extreme conditions and police action against them. So why is it that we don’t see a similar outcry from those people against the Endless War that is the largest contributor to what has been called Anthropocene climate change? Where have the war protesters been over the last eight years? What of the environmentalists? The Public Relations campaign that promotes “humanitarian intervention” and obfuscates this clear pattern of physical violence has apparently been working to justify Endless War.

Unless and until we see an aggressive drive towards disarmament and peace, the environment will continue to suffer and the opportunity to make meaningful progress in this area will eventually disappear. We simply cannot take seriously any efforts towards environmental policy that don’t include peace as its core value.

Note to the Reader: There are numerous links embedded in this essay that will connect the reader to documents, reports, essays, articles and videos. Although I am highly confident in the hundreds of pages of research and multiple sources used to write this paper… I still encourage all critical thinkers not to take my word for anything… click through and read the references provided and investigate on your own.

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” William Paley, c. 1794

References: