James Hufferd: Well, the fate of the world, to make it a better place for productive, well-intentioned people to live, even thrive in.
911 G: You don’t see it as that at present, then? How so?
JH: The world I see has become all tattered and twisted in knots, stressed way beyond the endurance of most. Or, we’ve just given up and avoid engagement in anything beyond our back yard. Or the elevator shaft allegedly connecting our flat with the ground. Our finances, for more of us every day, are in ruins, simply awful monsters we don’t dare face. World leaders are taunting each other worse than 6-year-olds fumbling nukes and other assorted w.m.d like carnival bears tossing around Tiffany glassware. Suicides 22 a day among those who’ve been pushed too close to the fire…
911 G: So then, what you’re suggesting is some now new way of wringing our hands?
JH: No! Gosh, I mean hell, no! That is what everyone seems to be doing – get out in the street and squall like an 8-month-old outraged toddler, maybe carrying signs, not buying Cheetos from the wrong stores, signing our name on a list – just the strategy we’ve been trying for a couple hundred years. And, surprise, it’s not working! Because – well, partly because, we’ve just telling people who do bad stuff to please knock it off. And it’s how they make their bucks, the way they bilk us, so they’re not going to stop it. They’re never going to. Because it works and we have no obvious way of ever stopping them. And a little part of what they do, after all, might even be good and needed. So, what we need to try to do is force a clear, reasonable limitation on it. Look, right now just might be the worst possible time to suggest what I’m about to suggest, what with this controversial, but generally cheered, staged reaction to Syria. Or, from another standpoint, if my idea can be tested by this and survive, well…
911 G: So, before we get too far into that, what is your take on what’s going on in Syria?
JH: Well, this will just be an impression, because it’s obviously too far away and murky, too many moving parts, complexity – and too many propaganda lies and half-based assessments – to be too sure of anything. But, some things I can see. One is that this one enigmatic man, Assad, the Syrian president, is somehow the nexus of everything. The explanation for that is varied in his case – why this one man holds such insufferable prominence in that context. It may be Syria’s maverick banking structure under him, which won’t give into the demands of western dollar- and debt-based central banking, and resists dealing in American dollars. Or, it could be something else, the fact that there’s oil. I could go on. But they want him gone, meaning the U.S. and the west. The people of Syria support him. Look, if I were Assad, and 400,000 people had died and countless additional hit the damn hard road out of there as a price of my staying in power, of keeping my fancy office and palace, car, body guards and the rest, whatever acclaim, etc.: even aside from the atrocity accusations, well, I’d be as far from there as I could get a ticket, a.s.a.p. And anyone else would be, too. On the other hand – as I suspect – if it’s because he dares to stand up to and even humiliate Israel and Israel wants him out, if his presence is the only remaining factor that is holding Syria together as a single country, which Israel wants to dismember – making him rather Lincoln-like in that regard – just as happened in Muslim former Yugoslavia earlier, a possible trial run under Clinton, and, as many expect to see before long in Iraq, the country is to be dismembered and essentially destroyed… Then I can see him, bolstered by Iran and Russia, hanging on patriotically and valiantly. If that’s what it is. If it’s a question of either Syria as a sovereign country for its people or a den of spiders and vipers, empty and wrecked, U.S./NATO-supported terrorist bands roaming over it exporting chaos… But I do see Israel’s hand on someone we know’s jugular to see that the fight stays primarily about him, despite Iran and Russia’s strong objections.
911 G: So, you’re against the position of the U.S. administration and military on this?
JH: Whatever that turns out to be! Basically, yes. Unless Trump can see through the ISIS deception and past his jackal, neocon military advisors, to really go after and clean out the rag-tag foreign Arab jihadist mercenaries posing as Syrian rebels against Assad, instead of supporting and allying with them like it has been. No matter who this ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, Al-Nusra, blood-sucking gang of killers ravaging Syria is, that Russia has been busy blasting away over loud U.S. objections, they’re lethal and impossible and need to be liquidated. But I’m wondering if Trump would be brash enough to order that – attacking them – over the howls of the neocon establishment and fixtures in his cabinet. Maybe that’s what he had in mind by wanting to join forces with Russia? Could still happen. But, the main thing to remember with neocons is that they don’t want to win wars. That’s why they practically never do, and the wars keep going on perpetually. They just want perpetual chaos, to produce fear and more demand for their services and unproductive (counterproductive) products, dependence, and to keep making trillions in war profits, nonstop.
911 G: OK, so what’s your big idea, to do something about all of that? Something we don’t seem to have thought of before?
JH: Well, it’s actually a fairly old idea, something that’s been around since the beginning of our country, but that we seem to have forgotten a long time ago. It will be laid out pretty fully and explored in my latest book, to come out in a few months, for which I chose the title, Colonel Crystal’s Parallel Universe. Not to give away the storyline of the book, but its central idea is this: If you know your American history, you know that there was a big reluctance, a big row at the beginning of the United States, in the 18th and very early 19th centuries, over having a standing military at all in the country. The British occupiers, still in charge here and there through the end of the Revolution, had left a very bad taste, and people wanted to make sure that any military force – such was certainly needed on the frontier and to protect against invasion by any would-be re-colonizers – would be strictly on their side, and so must be strictly a home-based, sort of do-it-yourself project, a coterie, essentially a patchwork of local militia units. But home-based was the main idea. Not contingents going off, willy-nilly, chasing after perceived or conjured enemies far from our borders. But assuredly strong enough to protect us at home and make the development of the country possible and, as far as possible, guaranteed safe. And this idea held, basically, with minor departures, all the way up to the U.S.-Mexico War, when the U.S. itself became the invader. Even in the Civil War, most of the units were recruited and identified with the individual states, on both sides. Thereafter, as the allure of foreign empire tempted, the original idea of military deployment being for one purpose only – to protect the shores, resources, and regular residents of the United States – was joined by that of fulfilling overseas ambitions and securing empires literally on a global scale.
And the world – let alone the United States, which weighs in at a bouncing 1/20 part of it – is likely never to recover from the steady escalation to overwhelming dominance of precisely this originally secondary repurposing of the American military, the results of which I suggest have been far more negative than positive for everybody, except a tiny and very unrepresentative splinter of our own population.
So, it’s high time, in my opinion, to re-establish an old, in order to establish an almost wholly-beneficial new standard of U.S. military deployment – a Defense-Only, Home-Based Military – providing us what could be strengthened, more-focused protection at home via the re-emphasis, while giving other peoples of the world a long-needed rest and the freedom to once again forge and follow policies that are in their best interest, and not always in ours. No more invasions. No more regime changes. No more rushing-to-put-out fires and choose between local adversaries. I’m not saying the results would be just as good if we stop intervening altogether; I’m saying they would, on the whole, be much better, because the excuses for intervening are often just that: excuses. Perhaps there could be a world lottery, or rotation, deciding which country leads next in case of a disaster somewhere. Because, our history at intervening at hot spots around the world has been to end up killing and uprooting hundreds or thousands or sometimes millions ourselves, prolonging the problems and spreading more misery – to the tune of some 60 million dead from American operations abroad since the end of WW II. And is the world getting better for it? You judge. In fact, such has been a smashing (deliberate choice of words) success only from the standpoint of war-hawks, neocons, the so-called “defense” industries that have thrived mightily on a continued and ever-growing flow of blood money issuing from gaping wounds incurred by us and our hellacious weapons on almost every inch of the globe.
We (i.e., the U.S.) maintain over 700 known foreign bases used for carrying out this wretched and universally-everywhere-else-despised work of the worst sort imaginable. By comparison, China just signed the contract for their first-ever overseas military base, in Djibouti, Africa, a country our plotters somehow must have missed. So, the score stands at 700+ to 1. Russia has but a single overseas naval base – where else but in Syria? In fact, every other country besides the U.S. on the face of the earth maintains a military deployment policy today that is very much closer to Defense-Only, Home-Based Military than to anything like our overt and covert connected streams of military and proto-military operations in at least 190 countries and counting. To control everything everywhere, from the ground to the moon – for whom? For that tiny, infected splinter minority of bigtime materiel producers, bankers, and professional military gamers.
At whose expense? Just ask yourself! How much does it cost American taxpayers and would-be workers in non-existent productive jobs that could be created on all the trillions in savings if we imposed Defense-Only, Home-Based Military as our new standard deployment. Or, we could leave the equivalent of the humongous cost in the hands of all of those spending and saving taxpayers, no longer consigning them, uniquely among their world peers, to such staggering cumulative debt and inevitable ruin and collapse. Who would be our enemy? And we could still sally forth to fulfill our treaty obligations, to Japan, for instance. Like any other country.
For such a literal life-saving change to happen, we Americans would overwhelmingly have to insist on instituting the new standard. But, considering the multiple economic, cultural, and huge psychological benefits and worldwide relief and joy that would surely result, we could do it. Here’s to no more battles of the titans!
911 G: Thank you, Dr. Hufferd. Let’s see if there’s any response.