………………
Murder, Inc. democrat women elected to US House in Nov. 2018 elections:
11/17/18, “Eleven military-intelligence Democrats win US House seats,” Patrick Martin, Worldwide Socialist Website
“Five of the 11 newly elected CIA Democrats are women, a fact which is endlessly celebrated by the media, although there is no reason to believe that female national-security officials are any less ruthless and bloodthirsty than their male counterparts.”…(GOP helped: 38 House districts didn’t even have a Republican candidate on the ballot in 2018. Democrats lacked candidates in only 3 districts.The GOP E is happier in the minority and was eager to get back to it. Until 1994, Democrats had held the House for 40 straight years.)
……………………………
Current US military might isn’t about defending Americans or ensuring their security:
“For the last 70 years, the obsession of US strategists has not been to defend their people, but to maintain their military superiority over the rest of the world. During the decade between the dissolution of the USSR and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they searched for ways to intimidate those who resisted them.”…
8/22/2017, “The US Military Project for the World,” Thierry Meyssen, VoltaireNet.org
…………………………..
1/2/19, “How women took over the military-industrial complex,” Politico, David Brown
“For the first time, the nation’s defense hierarchy is no longer dominated by men.”
“From the executive leadership of top weapons-makers, to the senior government officials designing and purchasing the nation’s military arsenal, the United States’ national defense hierarchy is, for the first time, largely run by women.
As of Jan. 1, the CEOs of four of the nation’s five biggest defense contractors — Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and the defense arm of Boeing — are now women. And across the negotiating table, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer and the chief overseer of the nation’s nuclear stockpile now join other women in some of the most influential national security posts, such as the nation’s top arms control negotiator and the secretary of the Air Force.
It’s a watershed for what has always been a male-dominated bastion, the culmination of decades of women entering science and engineering fields and knocking down barriers as government agencies and the private sector increasingly weigh merit over machismo.
And, as Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson told POLITICO, it’s also the result of “quieting that little voice in your head that doubts whether you can do that next job or take on that special assignment.”
“I think there’s critical mass, where you have enough women that they’re getting noticed,” said Rachel McCaffrey, a retired Air Force colonel and executive director of Women in Defense, a career development and networking organization affiliated with the National Defense Industrial Association, a leading industry group….
“To me, it’s a national security issue: We need every mind, every person engaged — male, female, every race, every level of experience,” said Lynn Dugle, a former vice president at Raytheon who is now CEO of Engility, an engineering and IT services firm that did more than $750 million of business with defense and intelligence agencies last year [2018]. “In the long term, we need to make sure talent wins.””…
[Ed. note: “National Security?” For everyone but the US. US taxpayers aren’t allowed to have “national security” on their own country’s wide open violent border. US military isn’t allowed to protect American soil. “National Security” to the Deep State means placing tanks and heavy weapons around borders of countries thousands of miles away, and bombing towns and villages all over the world. But never in the past 70 years has the US Defense Dept. allowed tanks to be placed along the violent 2000 mile US southern border, the one border in the world that most impacts US “national security.”]
(continuing): “Rewarding merit
The national security community, [“community?”] more than other fields, generally rewards high performers regardless of color or creed or gender, said Kathleen Hicks, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“Whenever you have a meritocracy, you set the playing field to be more level,” said Hicks, who also served as deputy principal undersecretary of Defense for policy in the Obama administration. “It’s a field that, by and large, is a meritocracy. It rewards merit….
.
Andrea Thompson climbed the rungs as an Army officer before she was tapped by President Donald Trump to be undersecretary of State for arms control and international security affairs, the top diplomat who reviews billions in U.S. arms sales and is responsible for implementing and negotiating international weapons agreements.
“I tell folks that one of the positive aspects of serving is equal opportunity and equal pay,” she said in an interview. “Many times, I was the only woman in the room. But I was always treated the same.”
Lisa Gordon-Hagerty [also a Trump admin. hire] is the first woman to run the National Nuclear Security Administration, the arm of the Department of Energy that builds and maintains the nation’s nuclear weapons.
She recalled in an interview that she’s also been the only woman in the room, but admits she didn’t notice unless someone else brought it up.
“After a while, it was never about the gender,” she said. “It was about the qualifications of the people sitting at the table.”
Math, science and a ‘thick skin’
Another major driver of the trend is the steady growth of women entering the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, which are critical preparation for these jobs and are disciplines that tolerate a measure of failure, said Karen Panetta, dean of graduate education at Tufts University’s School of Engineering.
“Every one of these incredible women all have experience working in STEM fields in some facet or another,” she said. “It trains you to learn how to fail. People don’t think about the failure or the disappointment that they’ve had along the way. It’s the distinguishing factor between women that make it versus those that don’t.”
But it has been far from easy. McCaffrey, the retired colonel, said she experienced a lot of “eye rolls” along the way. She recalled a time she tried to kill a wasteful program in the Air Force, and suspected it would have happened much faster if she were a man.
“We all know that no organization is perfect. You run into harassment,” she said. “The other side of the confidence coin with women is that in many cases, confident, assertive women are, I’ll be frank, seen as bitchy. So you run into what is the right balance of being confident and assertive while also being seen as approachable.”
“All of these women have thick skin,” said Panetta, the dean at Tufts.
At America’s largest defense companies, each with billions of dollars in revenues annually, the perseverance has paid off.
On Jan. 1, Kathy Warden, who held a series of senior executive positions at General Dynamics and other high-tech firms, became CEO of Northrop Grumman, the Pentagon’s fourth-largest contractor in 2017, with more than $20 billion of defense-related revenue.
She joins Hewson at Lockheed, the biggest Pentagon contractor with nearly $50 billion in defense revenue, who first joined the company more than three decades ago as an industrial engineer.
Phebe Novakovic, a former intelligence officer, is the CEO of defense giant General Dynamics, while Leanne Caret now runs Boeing’s Defense, Space and Security division.
Caret, whose mother and father both worked at Boeing, said women today still face challenges in her line of work. But it’s often more self-imposed than it is institutional — in her words, “aspiration rather than access.”
“We need women, and men, who can tackle really tough assignments without losing their sense of self or sense of humor,” she said….
They are all now doing business with Ellen Lord [a Trump admin. appointee], the first woman to hold the position of undersecretary of Defense for acquisition and sustainment, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer.
Lord previously served as CEO of Textron Systems, a subsidiary of Textron.
Questioning orthodoxy
How is their approach to leadership different than men’s? In many ways, both subtle and not so subtle, whether in solving problems or questioning deeply held assumptions, they say.
Panetta, who says she is often asked about the benefits of women in leadership, tells the story of soldiers in the desert using pantyhose to keep sand out of sensitive equipment. “Do you think a guy thought of that?” she asked. “For the longest time, these male-dominated organizations missed half of the population’s perspective on an issue or on an approach.”
McCaffrey also said women are less “wedded to ‘we’ve always done it this way.’ Sometimes women are a little more willing to question that.”
She ticked off several other ways defense companies and national security agencies can operate more effectively with women leading the way.
For one, women are shrewd negotiators. “I’ve known women who were good negotiators because they were underestimated,” McCaffrey said. “The key to negotiating is making sure you know what other peoples’ priorities are. Women tend to do that really, really well.””…
[Ed. note: This may be true, but aren’t we told that generalizing based on sex is “sexual stereotyping” and therefore bigoted?]
(continuing): “Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson — the third woman to hold the job since the 1990s — told lawmakers last year she believes it’s perfectly natural for women to play a greater role in defending the country.
“If I ask everyone in this room to think about the most protective person you know in your life, someone who would do anything to keep you safe, half the people in this room would think about their moms,” she told the House Armed Services Committee. “We are the protectors; that’s what the military does. We serve to protect the rest of you, and that’s a very natural place for a woman to be.”…
[Marillyn] Hewson, as CEO of Lockheed Martin, says she has made it a priority to recruit more women….
“We want this positive trend to continue,” she added. “We invest in a number of programs to inspire young women to focus on science, technology, engineering and math in school. We want to encourage more young women to pursue STEM careers so they can help us tackle tough challenges.””…
…………..
“Women in key defense roles,“ Clea Benson
“Women are now in charge of the nation’s top defense contractors and hold senior government jobs designing and purchasing the military arsenal. Here are some women holding key positions:
President and CEO, Northrop Grumman
Effective Jan. 1, 2019
Marillyn Hewson
President and CEO, Lockheed Martin
Effective Jan. 1, 2013
Phebe Novakovic
Chairman and CEO, General Dynamics
Effective January 2013
Leanne Caret
President and CEO, Boeing Defense, Space & Security
Effective February 2016
………….
[Government-Trump appointees]
Ellen Lord
Undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment
Effective August 2017
Heather Wilson
Secretary of the Air Force
Effective May 16, 2017
Lisa Gordon-Hagerty
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration
Effective Feb. 22, 2018
Andrea Thompson
Undersecretary of state for arms control and international security
Effective June 19, 2018″
……………………………….
Added:
For the past 70 years (since 1947) the US has refused to defend its own people, instead focused on maintaining military superiority and incapacitating populations the world over. UK wants to “partner” with US oligarchs in “rules-based international system.”…US
strategists like to compare their power to that of the Roman Empire.
But that empire brought security and opulence to the peoples they
conquered and integrated. It built monuments and rationalised their societies. “On the contrary, US neo-imperialism does not intend to offer anything to the people:”
8/22/2017, “The US Military Project for the World,” Thierry Meyssen, VoltaireNet.org
“US strategic thought” (subhead)
“For the last 70 years [since 1947], the obsession of US strategists has not been to defend their people, but to maintain their military superiority over the rest of the world. During the decade between the dissolution of the USSR and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they searched for ways to intimidate those who resisted them….
The Straussians (meaning the disciples of philosopher Leo Strauss) dreamed of waging and winning several wars at once (Full-spectrum dominance). This led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, placed under a common command [2].
Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski suggested reorganising the armies in order to facilitate the treament and sharing of a wealth of data simultaneously….As we shall see, the major reforms he initiated were soon to produce poisonous fruit.
US neo-imperialist thought…
Destroying the state structures is to operate a plunge into chaos, a concept borrowed from Leo Strauss, but to which Barnett [Cebrowski’s assistant] gives new meaning. For the Jewish philosopher, the Jewish people can no longer trust democracies after the failure of the Weimar Republic and the Shoah. The only way to protect itself from a new form of Nazism, is to establish its own world dictatorship – in the name of Good, of course. It would therefore be necessary to destroy certain resistant states, drag them into chaos and rebuild them according to different laws [7].…For Barnett, not only the few resistant people should be forced into chaos, but all those who have not attained a certain standard of life – and once they are reduced to chaos, they must be kept there….
One of the great differences between the thinking of Barnett and that of his predecessors is that war should not be waged against specific states for political reason, but against regions of the world because they are not integrated into the global economic system. Of course, we will start with one country or another, but we will favour contagion until everything is destroyed, just as we are seeing in the Greater Middle East. Today, [US taxpayer funded] tank warfare is raging in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt (Sinaï), Palestine, Lebanon (Ain al-Hilweh and Ras Baalbeck), Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (Qatif), Bahreïn, Yemen, Turkey (Diyarbakır), and Afghanistan.
This is why Barnett’s neo-imperialist strategy will necessarily be based on elements of the rhetoric of…the « war of civilisations » [9]. Since it is impossible to justify our indifference to the fate of the people from the reservoir of natural resources, we can always persuade ourselves that our civilisations are incompatible.
The implementation of US neo-imperialism
This is precisely the policy which has been in operation since 9/11. None of the wars which were started have yet come to an end. For 16 years [as of 2017], on a daily basis, the living conditions of the Afghan people have become increasingly more terrible and more dangerous. The reconstruction of their state, which was touted to be planned on the model of Germany and Japan after the Second World War, has not yet begun. The presence of NATO troops has not improved the life of the Afghan people, but on the contrary, has made it worse. We are obliged to note the fact that it is today the cause of the problem.
Despite the feel-good speeches on international aid, these troops are there only to deepen and maintain the chaos.
Never once, when NATO troops intervened, have the official reasons for the war been shown to be true – neither against Afghanistan (the responsibility of the Taliban in the attacks of 9/11), nor Iraq (President Hussein’s support for the 9/11 terrorists and the preparation of weapons of mass destruction to attack the USA), nor Libya (the bombing of its own people by the army), nor in Syria (the dictatorship of President Assad and the Alaouite cult). And never once has the overthrow of a government [“regime change”] ever put an end to these wars. They all continue without interruption, no matter who is in power.
The “Arab Springs”, which were born of an idea from MI6 and directly inspired by the “Arab Revolt of 1916” and the exploits of Lawrence of Arabia, were included in the same US strategy.
Tunisia has become ungovernable, Luckily, Egypt was taken back by its army and is today making efforts to heal. Libya has become a battlefield, not since the Security Council resolution aimed at protecting the population, but since the assassination of Mouamar Kadhafi and the victory of NATO.
Syria is an exception, because the state never fell into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, which prevented them from dragging the country into chaos. But numerous jihadist groups, born of the Brotherhood, have controlled – and still control – parts of the territory, where they have indeed sown chaos.
Neither the Daesh Caliphate, nor Idleb under Al-Qaïda, are states where Islam may flourish, but zones of terror without schools or hospitals.
It is probable that, thanks to its people, its army and its Russian, Lebanese and Iranian allies, Syria will manage to escape the destiny planned for it by Washington, but the Greater Near East will continue to burn until the people there understand their enemies’ plans for them. We now see that the same process of destruction has begun in the North-West of Latin America.
The Western medias speak with disdain about the troubles in Venezuela, but the war that is beginning there will not be limited to that country – it will spread throughout the whole region, although the economic and political conditions of the states which compose it are very different.
The limits of US neo-imperialism
The US strategists like to compare their power to that of the Roman Empire. But that empire brought security and opulence to the peoples they conquered and integrated. It built monuments and rationalised their societies. On the contrary, US neo-imperialism does not intend to offer anything to the people of the stable states, nor to the people of the reservoirs of natural resources. It plans to racket the former and to destroy the social connections which bind the latter together. Above all, it does not want to exterminate the people of the reservoirs, but needs for them to suffer so that the chaos in which they live will prevent the stable states from going to them for natural resources without the protection of the US armies.
Until now, the imperialist project ran on the principle that « you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs »….From now on, it is planning generalised massacres in order to impose its authority – definitively.
US neo-imperialism supposes that the other states of the G8 and their allies will agree to allow their overseas interests to be « protected » by US armies. That should pose no problem with the European Union, which has already been emasculated for a long time, but will have to be negotiated with the United Kingdom, and will be impossible with Russia and China.
Recalling its « special relationship » with Washington, London has already asked to be associated with the US project for governing the world. That was the point of Theresa May’s visit to the United States in January 2017, but she has so far received no answer [10].
Apart from that, it is inconceivable that the US armies will ensure the security of the « Silk Roads » as they do today with their British opposite numbers for the sea and air routes. Similarly, it is unthinkable for them to force Russia to genuflect, which has just been excluded from the G8 because of its engagement in Syria and Crimea.”
“Footnotes
[1] Shock and awe: achieving rapid dominance, Harlan K. Ullman et al., ACT Center for Advanced Concepts and Technology, 1996.
[2] Full Spectrum Dominance. U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond, Rahul Mahajan, Seven Stories Press, 2003.
[3] Network Centric Warfare : Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority, David S. Alberts, John J. Garstka & Frederick P. Stein, CCRP, 1999.
[4] Predator empire : drone warfare and full spectrum dominance, Ian G. R. Shaw, University of Minnesota Press, 2016.
[5] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas P. M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004.
[6] “State of the Union Address 1980”, by Jimmy Carter, Voltaire Network, 23 January 1980.
[7] Certain specialists of the political thinking of Leo Strauss interpret this in a completely different way. As far as I am concerned, I am not interested in what the philosopher thought, but what is being said by those who, rightly or wrongly, speak to the Pentagon in his name. Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Shadia B. Drury, Palgrave Macmillan, 1988. Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, Anne Norton, Yale University Press, 2005. Leo Strauss and the conservative movement in America : a critical appraisal, Paul Edward Gottfried, Cambridge University Press, 2011. Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians Against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers, Peter Minowitz, Lexington Books, 2016.
[8] The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy, Chapter 9, Andrew F. Krepinevich and Barry D. Watts, Basic Books, 2015.
[9] « The Clash of Civilizations ? » and « The West Unique, Not Universal », Foreign Affairs, 1993 and; 1996 ; The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington, Simon and Schuster, 1996.
[10] “Theresa May addresses US Republican leaders”, by Theresa May, Voltaire Network, 27 January 2017.”
……………………………..
[2] Full Spectrum Dominance. U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond, Rahul Mahajan, Seven Stories Press, 2003.
[3] Network Centric Warfare : Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority, David S. Alberts, John J. Garstka & Frederick P. Stein, CCRP, 1999.
[4] Predator empire : drone warfare and full spectrum dominance, Ian G. R. Shaw, University of Minnesota Press, 2016.
[5] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas P. M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004.
[6] “State of the Union Address 1980”, by Jimmy Carter, Voltaire Network, 23 January 1980.
[7] Certain specialists of the political thinking of Leo Strauss interpret this in a completely different way. As far as I am concerned, I am not interested in what the philosopher thought, but what is being said by those who, rightly or wrongly, speak to the Pentagon in his name. Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Shadia B. Drury, Palgrave Macmillan, 1988. Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, Anne Norton, Yale University Press, 2005. Leo Strauss and the conservative movement in America : a critical appraisal, Paul Edward Gottfried, Cambridge University Press, 2011. Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians Against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers, Peter Minowitz, Lexington Books, 2016.
[8] The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy, Chapter 9, Andrew F. Krepinevich and Barry D. Watts, Basic Books, 2015.
[9] « The Clash of Civilizations ? » and « The West Unique, Not Universal », Foreign Affairs, 1993 and; 1996 ; The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington, Simon and Schuster, 1996.
[10] “Theresa May addresses US Republican leaders”, by Theresa May, Voltaire Network, 27 January 2017.”
……………………………..
No comments:
Post a Comment