Yesterday, a ridiculous article was posted on the OilPrice.com website (on which ludicrous articles are not rare).
The article says that:
“In the 2009 Academy Award-winning movie The Hurt Locker, a Baghdad butcher holds a cell phone as he stands near the site of an improvised explosive device (IED). A squad of US soldiers shouts at the Iraqi to put the phone down. He smiles and waves, reassuring the soldiers he is not a threat. Then he presses a button on the cell phone and detonates a bomb, killing one of the soldiers.
Such an incident would be rare, according to the authors of a new report from the National Strategy Information Center, a Washington-based think tank, if their recommendations were to be implemented by the US military.
The report, titled Adapting America’s Security Paradigm and Security Agenda, posits that the population-centric warfare being pursued in Afghanistan and Iraq is here to stay for decades to come, and that the US needs to adapt its military thinking and its capabilities to meet that challenge.”
What gibberish. It would be utterly ridiculous to base any policies on a fictional film. As for “population-centric warfare”, it is a ridiculous strategy guaranteed to fail, because it calls on American troopers to appease local populations, “win their hearts”, refrain from screening them, and refraining from defending themselves when they’re attacked. General McChrystal implemented such a strategy in Afghanistan, thus guaranteeing that the Taleban – who are not bound by restrictive ROE – will win the Afghan war. The “population-centric warfare” strategy should be consigned to the garbage bin.
OilPrice.com quotes a certain pseudoanalyst:
“The persistence of population-centric warfare is related to the proliferation of weak, failing and failed states, Roy Godson, president of the National Strategy Information Center and professor emeritus at Georgetown University, told ISN Security Watch. States in that category comprise around half of all states worldwide, he said.
“They are looking for leadership and support from the United States,” said Godson. “We have opportunities to work with them and build coalitions against the coalitions that are working against US interests.””
American interests do not require the US to intervene in failing/failed states; they require America to stay out of them. Yet, the “professor” wants to entangle the US in all of these failed states, that is, in 50% of all countries of the world.
And finally, the most ridiculous of the claims of that article (written by Peter Buxbaum):
“”It is cost neutral at worst,” he said, “and it and may even save money from the defense budget in the long term.”
That would be good news to beleaguered Pentagon budgeters, who are under the gun to chop whatever they can out of bloated defense appropriations.”
This is a blatant lie. The defense budget is not bloated, and by consequence, neither are any of its specific components. The defense budget ($534 bn, a historically small figure) constitutes only 3.65% of GDP, which (excluding the Clinton era) is the lowest level of defense spending since FY1948. The defense budget constitutes only 14% of the federal budget. The blood libel that the defense budget is bloated is a lie deliberately spread by anti-defense liberals to induce the American people to demand defense budget cuts, and by politicians to excuse defense budget reductions.
Another OilPrice.com article claimed that:
Japan’s 15 year old zero interest rate policy made it unattractive when the others were yielding 5%-6%. Now that all the major currencies yield close to nothing, the playing field is level.
While the government has been a massive issuer of debt, thanks to the country’s high savings rate some 95% is held domestically, unlike the US, where more than 28% is owned by foreigners. You don’t hear rumors of China threatening to dump its JGB holdings, because they own virtually none.”
Technically true, but this statement is designed the American people to believe that the Chinese own a majority of America’s debt and are threatening to “dump it”. They are not, and that is because they could make only a small impact which the US government would hardly worry about.
As Steve Conover proved with his pie chart, the myths that “America is borrowing money from China” and “China owns the majority of America’s debt” are utterly false. As of 31st January 2009, the total debt of the US government was $10.620 trillion. The largest portion of this debt – 41% – is owned by the US government itself, that is, this part of the debt is owned by one government to another. Another 31% is owned by the American private sector (private corporations and private citizens). Only 29% of the debt is owned by foreign countries. China owns only $740 bn (i.e. 6.9%) of the debt of the US government.