The Rise of the Chinese Dragon and Decline of the United States

Somehow its seems appropriate that the Chinese astrological symbol for 2025 is the Snake, specifically the wooden snake, The Snake is sometimes referred to as the "Little Dragon" which follows the Dragon symbol in the Chinese astrology, and is associated with Earth (it's also occasionally called the "Serpent") and is the sixth of the twelve zodiac signs. The Snake, it is said, is intelligent, cunning, and patient. At the same time it can be narrow minded, judgmental, vain, sneaky, and petty. Why is that significant?

Well, in the world of mythology, which not so surprisingly, still exerts a influence, albeit mostly symbolic, on our lives. We name pieces of technology, procedures, and even name planets after mythological gods and goddesses. Many of us still read our horoscope with at least a passing curiosity. Even when we go out on dates we often get asked "what's your sign" in the hopes that it will reveal a possible compatibility. 

As anyone who follows politics, economics, or current events should know, China has become a major economic power. In 2022, we imported $536.3 billion dollars worth of goods from China. That represents 16.5% of all U.S. imports. Most of that ranges from cheap toys, tools, and miscellaneous items to sophisticated technical hardware, computer chips and processors, computers, batteries (especially lithium), display monitors, and video games. 

Meanwhile, we ship some $195.5 billion dollars in goods back to China, accounting for 7.5% of China's total imports.  We are indebted to China to the tune of just over $1 trillion dollars. That's roughly 7% of our national debt. Still, the United States still has the largest economy in the world, larger than China's by nearly a third. However, among the top industrial nations, China has the fastest growing economy, and may surpass the U.S. in ten or so years.

 Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is currently $30.4 trillion compared to China's with $19.6 trillion. While much is made of Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland, in fact China owns just under 1% of American farmland (Canada owns the most). That accounts for about 380,000 acres.  

However, there's another key factor to be considered. Along with having the fastest growing economy in the world among the top industrialized nations, China is also rapidly expanding its economic reach. China has been aggressively buying up control of natural resources around the world, exceeding that of the United States. 

China has been acquiring rights not just to farmland, but mineral rights as well, especially strategic minerals used in computer and missile technology like cobalt and platinum.  However, perhaps one of the most essential of resources, potable water, has been high on China's "buy" list. With 20% of the world's population, it has just 6% of its drinking water. In addition, because of its rapid "hellbent" economic growth, minimizing pollution has not been high on the government's list of things to do. 

According to a study done by the Lowy Institute, somewhere around 85% of China's groundwater is not fit for consumption (over 40% of the groundwater in Beijing is unusable). Worse still, nearly half of China's groundwater isn't safe to be used in the production of crops. On the upside (if there is one) is that China's water pollution isn't the worse. India's is.  What this means is that the two most populous countries on the planet have critical need for scarce usable water, making it perhaps the single most critical natural resource. Many military strategists believe that useable water may become valuable than gold or oil, and thus making its control of primary importance, especially given climate change. What cannot be bought or bartered for will be taken by force as a matter of national survival.   

Another serious factor has been China's growing aggressiveness over control of the South China Sea, which has traditionally been used as a international shipping lane. However, China is now claiming territorial control of the channel, and threatening to use force to hinder or stop all international shipping, including the passage of U.S. military ships. China has even threatened to fire on or seized any vessels traversing the channel. Why the sudden interest in control of a waterway which has long be seen as open?

One possible explanation could be China's recent growth in its navy and its ability to protect whatever it claims. By the end of 2025, China is expected to have 395 ships, including three aircraft carriers, and 435 by 2030. as of 2024, China possessed 234 warships compared to 219 belonging to the U.S. Navy, which makes the Chinese navy this largest---and most modern---in the world. It's should be noted that not only are China's navy newer, it has more shipyards and drydocks than the U.S.. In addition, several recent wargame scenarios have shown China's navy as the victor. This is due to both the newness and quantity of their ships (meaning China's navy can afford to lose more than the U.S. can). 

China has been making use of its new found naval power not only in the South China Sea, but also reenforcing its claim of expanded territorial fishing rights in areas once considered international waters, as well as impinging on waters now claimed by South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and even India. China has also been stepping up it claim of national sovereignty over the island nation of Taiwan in addition to strengthening its ties with North Korea and Iran. 

A Pentagon report on U.S. military readiness didn't help. According to the report provided to the Department of Defense, the United States military was in serious need of a general overhaul, running the gambit from rifles and bullets to tanks, personnel carriers, artillery to aircraft, combat and support ships. In its present condition, according to the Pentagon, the military wasn't capable of fighting a sustained conflict on multiple fronts. 

Thanks to the 20 year war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as propping up the Zelensky regime in Ukraine and U.S. support of Israel, the U.S. military is also running critically low levels on spare parts, and technicians to maintain and operate various systems. This is due to the massive hemorrhage of personnel getting out of the military (many of whom have done numerous deployments). For instance, in 2022, the Army missed its infantry recruitment goal by 50%. 

Since 2013, the number of males enlisting has dropped 38%. Enlistment from 1980 through 2020 dropped 59%. To make matters worse, according to the DoD, 77% of individuals of military age (17 - 24) are unfit to serve due to issues like obesity, drug use, mental or other physical reasons. As of November 2023, the Navy was 20% of it annual recruitment goal. The Army was 23% short, and the Air Force was 11% shy of its recruitment goal. Only the Marines and Space Force reached their recruitment numbers.  

Another issue facing the military is the Defense industry's focus on weapon systems that are either not wanted or needed. Following Nazi Germany's example toward the end of WWII, many of the weapons systems have become overly complex and prohibitively expensive (the Wehrmacht adopted equipment which were so complex, they were difficult to maintain such as the "King Tiger" tank or V2 rocket, plus the expense resulted in the production of relatively few numbers).

Per the "2024 Index of U.S. Military Strength"  published by the Heritage Foundation, China is listed as a "formable" threat in Asia  along with Russia. North Korea is considered worth watching. So, how does our military stack up? Again, according to the "Index", the U.S. Army's capacity for waging war is categorized as "weak".   Its capability is listed as "marginal", while its readiness is excellent. Overall, it's rated as "marginal". The Air Force faces similar problems. Its capacity and capability are both "marginal" while its readiness is "very weak" as is its overall rating. 

The U.S. Navy, facing reduction in the number of ships and shipyards, had a capacity rating of "very weak". It capability is rating is "marginal". As for its readiness and overall ratings, both are "weak". As an aside, its projected that with the growth of the Chinese navy, the U.S. Navy will likely not recover its previous naval dominance for at least the next decade. The Marine Corps has a  "weak" capacity rating, while capacity, readiness, and overall score were all "strong".  

The newest member of the military services, the U.S. Space Force, is still looking for its mission. It has yet to establish its fighting credentials (perhaps if aliens invade...). Nevertheless, it maintains satellites, drones, and related technology which are still emerging as unique military systems. But, they're not quite there yet. The U.S. Space Force was rated "marginal" across the board.   Next is our nuclear abilities. In terms of stockpile, delivery modernization, and "allied assurance" the rating was "very strong". 

When it came to delivery platform reliability, warhead modernization (heck, slap a coat of paint on there. Truth me, it won't matter), lab technicians, and weapons complex, the score was "marginal" as was the overall rating.  So, when we add it all up, the U.S. military came out with a overall score of "weak". The question then, is this good enough of a deterrent to stop China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, or a outside player, such as ISIS or Al Qaeda?   

There's no question China is playing the long game. While its economy is growing rapidly, it has also been promoting the Yuan as the alternative currency to the U.S. dollar (or even a possible replacement) which is unlikely, at least in the near future. It has joined Russia, India, South Africa, and Brazil as one of the principal members of "BRICS", which is poised to become a serious competitor to the U.S. dominated "New World Order". While BRICS has aways to go yet, its already showing promise as the number of applicants, especially among less developed countries, continues to grow.  

China's military, like its economy, has been growing and exerting its influence ever wider. With a weakening United States internally and externally, there is a quiet but growing question starting to be asked in serious but hushed tones throughout the nations of Asia, Africa, and even South America, and that question is whether they should continue to place all their political and economic eggs into one "Made in America" basket or is it time to accept the new role of the Chinese "Dragon" as we being the year of "Snake", or as it's also known, the "Little Dragon"?  

 

 Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you be sure to "like" us on whatever site you found us on in order to keep our articles available for others, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

China's Ownership of US Federal Debt

 

China's dominance of strategic resources

How Much U.S. Farmland Does China Really Own? More Than Bill Gates ---And Less Than 17 Other Countries

The Top Ten Largest Economies in the World in 2025

The Global Impact of China's Water and Related Environmental Problems

How Does Water Security Affect China's Development? 

Executive Summary of the 2024 Index of  U.S. Military Strength

CFR: What Is the BRICS Group and Why Is It Expanding?

Is military enlistment down?

Our Military Is in a Dangerous Decline and This Is the Reason Why

The War in Afghanistan: Who Benefited? Who Didn't?

Here's something you likely won't hear from the corporate media. Although we spent 20 years in Afghanistan, we left it largely the same way we found it---backwards, corrupt, and in the hands of the Taliban. So, who benefited and who didn't?

We were told that the ones responsible for 9/11 were in Afghanistan, and the Taliban run government was aiding and abiding them. Well, that was true...to a point. U.S. and Western intelligence identified Osama bin Laden as the mastermind, which was likely. This son of a wealthy and well connected Saudi family had previously "declared war" on the United States, although no one seemed to notice or care.

Al Qaeda launched several attacks on U.S. and Western targets, mostly in Africa and low security targets in Europe such as a disco in Berlin which was frequented by American servicemen and women. When that failed to adequately get our attention, he changed tactics. This time he focused on a high profile target in the United States---the Twin Towers

Bin Laden recruited 15 fellow Saudis, 2 from the UAR, and one each from Lebanon and Egypt for the mission, and sent them off into the belly of "the Great Satan" where our overconfidence became their best weapon. It's also where 2,996 innocent people going about their daily business people died. In their place, a blind and deaf patriotism was born along with about a dozen conspiracy theories (by the way, that just because it's called a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean it isn't true).

Saved from a failing presidency, George "Dubya" Bush went from an approval rating low somewhere in the subterranean sewers of Washington DC to calls for another face to be added to Mt. Rushmore. In all the vengeful anger and patriotic fever of the moment, we allowed the so-called "Patriot Act" to take hold; a document about as "patriotic" as the Enabling Act of 1933 following the Reichstag Fire (and just as spontaneous too).

Over the next 20 years the United States and its aid dependent allies delivered Hell from above and below. An estimated 243,000 Afghani and Pakistanis died as death was delivered with UPS efficiency from above and below. 70,000 men, women and children died as a direct result. The bad guys lost at least 53,000, but that's only a guess. Apparently "holy warriors" don't keep statistics, or at least make them public.

On the other side, U.S. and coalition forces lost at least 70,600 with about 22,773 wounded. 2,356 of these were America's future. God only knows how many bear scars you can't see.  Of the 70,600 total, 65,596 were part of the Afghan Security Forces, with an additional 16,500 wounded.

By comparisons, Russia lost over 15,000 of its sons and daughters during the course of its 10 year war in Afghanistan with thousands more wounded. Russian military personnel managed to kill an estimated 90,000 Mujahedeen fighters which were heavily supported by the U.S., (it's said this was partly in revenge for Soviet support of the NVA and Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. Knowing the NeoCons, it probably was).

At the same time, over one million Afghan civilians were killed, not including those killed in the subsequent civil war which followed the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 though the takeover by the Taliban in 1996.

Not to be outdone by the Western "crusaders", the Taliban is believed to have destroyed approximately $500 million dollars worth if infrastructure affecting 13 million people in 116 districts. It left 92% of population "food insecure" and some 3 million children facing severe malnutrition. Take that infidels! 

Just since our withdrawal in May 2021, some 400+ has been murdered by the Taliban (is it still "murder" if the Taliban claims it was acting on orders from God? Guess to the dead or their families it doesn't really matter does it?). Of course, there's always the billions in U.S. military equipment left behind which suddenly made the Taliban the fifth largest military in the world. Who should the Taliban thank for that little "gift"?

Ironically, despite the majority of Americans demanding an end to war in Afghanistan (54%) by 2021, nearly half---46%--- now believe the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban's new and improved "We-Say-So" government represents a threat to U.S. national security.  Ah the fickle masses!

Meanwhile, women are being regulated back to their pre-infidel invasion third class status as school for women and girls is cancelled and women are fired from their jobs. Those who own businesses face closure. Those who speak out risk public beatings, acid thrown in their faces, or stoning to death. If only the Taliban could reach the same level of  Iran's enlightenment (sarcasm intended).

What about the American People? Aside for the deaths and injuries whose cost are beyond measure, most don't realize that our 20 year long fiasco in Afghanistan and Iraq was paid for solely on credit. Can you guess who is picking up the tab? 

Best estimates put the damage to U.S. taxpayers at around $2.2 trillion dollars (or $300 million per day). With interest, some estimates put the cost at $6.2 trillion dollars by 2050 (good luck with that Millennials and Gen Z). You might be interested to know that during the Korean War, President Harry Truman temporarily raised the top end tax rate on the rich to 92%. During Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson raised it to 77%. So what did ole "Dubya" do? President George Bush lowered the tax rate on America's richest to 8%.

So, who benefited from the 20 years we spent in Afghanistan? Well, it's hard to say. The Afghani people certainly didn't. They suffered mightily under the Soviet invasion and its nine year occupation. They suffered under the Taliban's occupation.

America's invasion and occupation was almost as bad, except there was a measure of gender equality while we were there.  Women and girls could go to school. They could work, own property, and do other things females get to do in the modern world; you know, like they were ordinary people and stuff

In addition, women and other Afghanis could also freely vote, although the Taliban and other Islamic extremists did their best to try and prevent it. Nevertheless, there was a measure of democratic freedom which is rare in the Middle East.  Unfortunately after we left (or rather, as we left), democracy came to quick end and the 10th Century returned in all its ugliness as the Taliban picked up where it left off.

The American People didn't really benefit. Sure, we were given a target to vent our anger on following the cowardly attacks of 9/11. But along the way, we were betrayed by some of our regional "allies" (I'm talking about Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency and its Prime Minister, Imran Khan) and various tribal chiefs (most had to be bribed to show any measure of loyalty).

We could have had bin Laden and many more of his key commanders much sooner had those in Imran Khan's government not help finance, arm, train, hide, and provide intelligence to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which would have saved a lot of innocent lives on all sides. It's a shame how some individuals put their greed for personal power and wealth before the wellbeing of their own people. But, at the same time it exposes their moral weakness for all the world to see.

While extracting our revenge, we failed to notice the underhandedness happening here at home. Sure, we came together as a people. We closed ranks. We hung out flags.We cheered at the playing of our national anthem. Patriotism was back in vogue again. We hadn't been this united since December 8, 1941, the day after another cowardly attack which caught us with our pants down and our cockiness up.

Perhaps it was this unity which concerned certain individuals and groups. After all, a united America was something they didn't want. They had spent lots of time, effort, and money to keep Americans divided. After all, divided, frustrated, and confused was how to control us. United and we were suddenly dangerous. United and we just might focus our manufactured anger away from each other and on those who sought to destroy our Republic and turn it into a neo-fascist corporatocracy.

So, without even completely reading it, a document that had been drafted primarily by corporate lobbyists was rushed through Congress and passed. It was given a euphemistically optimistic sounding name of "the Patriot Act" as if questioning what it was or what was in it was somehow unpatriotic.  A few lone voices in the political wilderness tried to warn us but were quickly silenced. The surveillance state was born.

The "Patriot Act" effectively declared a never-ending war based on a loosely defined term--- "terrorism" where rights for individuals cease to exist under the pretext of national security. Gone too were all the usual checks and balances we've come to expect such as accountability, limits on search and seizure or judicial oversight.

The enemy was now whoever the State said it was. Those arrested under "FISA" can essentially disappear. Under "FISA" you have the right to absolutely nothing whatsoever. It combined all the elements of McCarthyism's "Red Scare" with aspects of the KGB's early morning knocks on the doors and George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984". 

Obviously, the American People didn't benefit, so again, who did?  Wall Street benefited. The Pentagon spent $14 trillion dollars, with roughly half that going to defense contractors (according to one report, since 2001, payments made to defense contractors have risen 164%). The majority of money spent went to just five corporations---Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, and Boeing, but other companies such as General Electric and Halburton made out alright too.  

Thanks to our new "surveillance state", spy agencies saw their budgets balloon, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Security Agency (NSA), as well as the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Agency (NRC), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), along with the various intelligence arms of the various U.S. military branches. Naturally, off the book budgets, the so-called "black budgets", likely were increased. Much of this was used to fund various covert research/development and operations carried out by "independent" contractors. 

Meanwhile, Congress and other government officials benefited. Defense contractors reportedly spent over $2.5 billion dollars over the past 20 years and employed over 700 lobbyists. On average, members of Congress had three lobbyists each just from Defense industry. We the People had none. This is the "free speech" Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) talks about when defending Citizens United.

So, if you want to know who benefited from our 20 year venture in Afghanistan and Iraq, now you know. It wasn't the Afghani People or the American People. The ones who benefited from the war which claimed tens of thousands killed or wounded, and billions of dollars in destruction were defense contractors and their de facto "employees" in Congress. This is just one relatively small example of the power and control Wall Street has over government. 

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Timeline: Major attacks by al Qaeda

Hijackers in the September 11 attacks

Taliban Destroyed, Damaged Infrastructure in 116 Districts:IARCS

A year later, a look back at public opinion about the U.S.military exit from Afghanistan

The cost of the Afghanistan war, in lives and dollars

CFR: Pakistan's Support For the Taliban: What To Know

ACLU: Surveillance under the USA/Patriot Act

Watson Institute: Costs of War

 

The Fall of Afghanistan and the Fall of Empires

At 7:37 pm, Major General Christopher Donahue, the commanding  general of the 82nd Airborne Division out of Ft. Bragg North Carolina, became the last U.S. serviceman to leave Afghanistan as he boarded a C-17 in Kabul for home.  Within minutes of taking off, all around and in Kabul, guns shots could be heard as the Taliban celebrated their perceived victory over the American and allied armies. The infidels had been defeated. The "Great Satan" and his agents had been vanquished.

It's been said that every great empire which has invaded Afghanistan has not just been defeated, but collapses soon after. Examples which have often been cited include: Alexander the Great's, the Mongols, the British, the Soviets, and now, perhaps the Americans.  Well, maybe. Genghis Khan did it. So did Tamerlane, and the Persians, Turks, and others. So, it's true that empires have fallen after invading Afghanistan, but not necessarily because of Afghanistan. It's not the foregone conclusion that some think.

Nevertheless, for a great many people, there was just something about the last military flight out of Afghanistan in the darkness of Kabul which smacked of sneaking out; as if we were ashamed of what we accomplished or failed to accomplish. A thief in the night.  Our withdrawal was seen by the world as unorganized and chaotic. Not what you would expect from a superpower.

There are already stories of hundreds of Americans being left behind; stuck and surrounding by a Taliban looking for some "after occupation" revenge, and yet the last flights out of Kabul were all Afghan nationals. Of course, we can't forget the vast amount of military hardware left abandoned by the Afghan army; so much so that the Taliban now has a larger air fleet than Australia (albeit much of it in disrepair). Still, it now has tanks, Humvees, heavy trucks, artillery, drones, transports, night vision goggles, and everything else you would want for that despot on your Christmas shopping list.

Flashback to February 15, 1989, and Soviet General Boris V. Gromov, who walked behind a long column of tanks, and trucks carrying everything from soldiers to equipment, crossed the so-called "Friendship Bridge" over the Amu Dayra River, separating Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. The orderly withdrawal of Soviet troops, done in the light of day and with a bit of Russian military pomp, brought to an end a disastrous ten year war and a failed pro-Soviet government. 

Years later, the retired General Gromov confirmed that there were no Russians  remaining in Afghanistan, and added that Soviet Union was "done" with Afghanistan. Soviet troops destroyed or took with them nearly everything they could, leaving little to nothing for the mujahideen, which at the time included a embryonic Taliban and Al Qaeda.  So, what happened to us?

Our withdrawal and evacuation is being called by many as an example of a defeated military. The Chinese are using it to intimidate Taiwan and bully other nations. They claim that it shows that America can't be trusted to defend their friends or keep their word.  They are subtly urging nations to reconsider their allegiance to America and the Western Powers; suggesting that they move closer to the Chinese orbit.

When the Soviet troops began their pullout of Afghanistan in 1988, the American Pentagon and State Department used the occasion to call Afghanistan the USSR's "Vietnam". Now, Russia is reminding us and the world of its irony. The Soviet's attempted and failed to install a puppet government just as we did, and both imploded for pretty much the same reasons---tribalism, incompetence, and good ole corruption.

In 1994, the Taliban seized control of government and began imposing it radical version of Islam (curricular 950 AD). Now, 20 years after we invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban in our hunt for Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership, they're back with  it's Taliban 2.0 and it promises to be even more retro! Besides, thanks to the Afghan army and an inept government, it now has state of art military hardware.

I guess what's important is that we're finally out (except for the 100 or so Americans left behind) and President Biden got some great photo-ops, except for those where he is looking at his watch as the caskets of dead U.S. servicemen and women go by (at one point, he looked like he was starting to wonder off. I guess it must have been past his nap time). I don't think we want to include any of the audio where family members of the fallen let Biden know what they thought of him and his clusterf*ck of an evacuation which unnecessarily cost even more American lives. 

Afghanistan was not another Vietnam. We didn't "sneak" out. We accomplished our stated objective. We took out Osama bin Laden and the leadership of Al Qaeda. We have a great deal to be proud of when it comes to the men and women who went there and did their job. We asked much of them and they delivered. But, like Vietnam, it became a political war, and by that, I mean it was about multi-million dollar contracts and prolonging a war for the purpose of greater profits.

Wars are rarely ever fought for the sake of freedom any more. They are fought for profit.  They stimulate dragging economies and artificially inflate sagging prices.  Wars help corporations gain access to markets or expand control over resources and assets. They also exist to reduce "excess" populations and artificially lower unemployment numbers which doesn't include those in uniform. 

Terms like "democracy", "equality", "justice", and even "freedom" are used to stir up the population, but it's pure propaganda. They're all lies. It may sound cynical, but wars are now a built-in part of domestic and foreign economic policy. That's why there's always at least one brewing somewhere.

There is, however, one curious connection between Vietnam and Afghanistan I'd like to mention. Flashback if you will to that terrible day in September 2001. Flight 77, leaving out of Washington-Dulles International Airport is hijacked by five Saudi hijackers with connections to Al Qaeda. Shortly after departing, the hijackers took control of the American Airlines Boeing 723 and redirected the doomed airliner to the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia.

Working at the Pentagon that day, in Veteran Affairs, was 69 year Max Bielke. Max, who was the deputy chief of the Retirement Services Division, was called a quiet and introspective guy. He was a big guy of German heritage, who grew up near Alexandria, Minnesota on a small farm. Max really cared about veterans and was instrumental in getting TRICARE passed by Congress, thanks to his hard work, attention to detail, and willingness to testify before nearly endless committees.

At the time of impact at 9:37, Max was hard at work in the west wing of Pentagon, doing what he loved the most, working on a new veterans program, alongside Lieutenant General Timothy Maude and retired Lieutenant Colonel Gary Smith. Max, Tim, and Gary were three of the 125 fatalities on the ground, along with 64 aboard Flight 77 who died that day at the Pentagon. There was something else about Max. Something special. He was, as expected, retired military. To be specific, he was a retired Master Sergeant from the Army, but that's not what made Max all that special.

You see, Max Bielke was the last official soldier to leave Vietnam.  He entered the history books on March 29, 1973, when he boarded a C-130  leaving Saigon for (as they say in the military) "anywhere but the hell here". The truth was, he was finally headed home just like General Donahue was 48 years later. When you're in the military, there's no other place you want to be. It's worth noting that just before he boarded the C-130, a North Vietnamese colonel gave him a rattan table mat with a pagoda weaved into it (a pagoda is a Buddhist symbol for success and luck). 

The Russians call our involvement and subsequent departure in Afghanistan an "irony" reminiscent of a second Vietnam, and perhaps it is. However, what I find to be more of an irony is the fact that the last soldier to leave Vietnam, who spent the rest of his life trying to help fellow veterans, should be a victim of a terrorist hijacking which triggered our involvement in another war; this one in Afghanistan. So, perhaps Vietnam and Afghanistan may have more in common than not.  

 

Photo shows the last US soldier leaving Afghanistan. He is acommander at Ft. Bragg

An Iconic Bridge Sees U.S. Allies Flee Afghanistan As TheSoviets Did

30 Year Anniversary Of Soviet Withdrawal From Afghanistan

Why Is Afghanistan the 'graveyard of Empires'?

Remembering the Pentagon Victims

Remembering The Lost

 

 

 

Getting More Bucks for the Bang: America's Top Military Contractors

As you all may recall from my last article, America's 25+ year war has resulted in a severe shortage of munitions and spare parts, which are critical to maintain our "bombing for Democracy". In several cases, the US military is down to a single provider for certain parts or chemical ingredients. This got me to thinking about just who are major military contractors. Given that the Industrial-Military complex, of which we've been repeatedly warned, is not just a multi-billion business, but a key player in determining our foreign policy (and whose lobbyist even help write the bills legislators will vote on and whose money plays as serious factor in funding their campaigns), I thought I'd like to take a look at the major players.

Tops on the list is Lockheed Martin, which is known for its missile systems and fighters such as the F-35 Lighting II. They are currently working on a $528 million dollar interceptor missile system called "THAAD", which stands for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system which is to be used as a "shield" from short and middle range ballistic missile attacks. Lockheed Martin currently has 66,353 contracts awarded totaling $29.4 billion dollars. Lockheed makes a vast array of other military hardware including the F-22 Raptor, C-130 Hercules, F-16 Falcon, P-3 Orion, F-117 Nighhawk, and the AC-130W Stinger.

Coming in second is Boeing, which not only produces commercial passenger planes but military aircraft such as the EA-18G "Growler" which provides tactical electronic jamming designed to interfere with enemy communications and various electronic equipment. That contract is valued at $897.5 million dollars. Boeing has 12,645 contracts totaling $14.6 billion dollars. Boeing also make the C-17 Globemaster III, KC-135 Stratotanker, E-3 AWACS surveillance aircraft, drones, and various types of satellites.

Third on the list is Raytheon Company. Raytheon produces precision munitions, including the 464 Excalibur extended range projectiles; a $31.8 million dollar contract. The Excalibur is reputed to be longest range and most accurate cannon fired projectile in the world. Good for reaching out and touching those special "someone's". They also produce other systems like the TOW, Patriot Missile, AMRAAM, HAARP, Tomahawk Cruise missile, and AIM 9x Sidewinder. Raytheon has 10,000 contracts worth $12.3 billion dollars.

Forth is General Dynamics, which has been one of those long time military contractor going back decades to World War I. General Dynamics has 20,822 military contracts worth $11.8 billion dollars. They are currently working on $664.3 million contract to produce an additional DDG-51 Class Destroyer for the US Navy, which is described as a "all steel, gas turbine ship equipped with a AEGIS combat system, Vertical Launching System, an advanced anti-submarine warfare system, two embarked SH-60 helicopters, advanced anti-aircraft missiles, satellites, and Tomahawk anti-ship/anti-land attack missiles. Sounds like a lot of "bang" for the bucks doesn't it? In addition, General Dynamics is known for the M-1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, Stryker, Buffalo, Cougar, and Ajax armored fighting vehicles. Of course, there's the ever handy GAU-19/B .50 caliber Gatling gun and the Hydra 70 unguided missile systems, the M2/M2-A1 heavy machine gun, and the MK19/MK47 grenade launcher which are good for keeping those pesky neighbors on their side of the fence.

Fifth on the Top 10 list of leading military contractors is Northrop Grumman which has produced some of America's most famous aircraft like the Stealth Fight and Stealth Bomber. The company has been tasked with producing a new generation long range stealth bombers to replace the Air Force's aging fleet of bombers. The contract is worth $55 billion dollars. The company currently has 10,397 contracts totaling $9.5 billion dollars. They also manufacture the A-10 Thunderbolt II or as it's better known, the "Warthog", the E-2D Advance Hawkeye surveillance aircraft, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, F-18 Super Hornet, and the F-35 Lighting II.

Sixth is United Technologies, with 24,626 contracts valued at $6.6 billion dollars. The company is working on a $1.04 billion contract to produce a new generation of engines for the F-35 multipurpose fighter jet through its subsidiary, Pratt & Whitney. They also produce everything for ejection seats to highly sensitive surveillance systems for drones as well as defense satellites, sensors, and controls.

Coming in at seventh is L3 Communications which produces various type of optic equipment for the military. With 7,622 contracts worth $5 billion, the company has reputed to be having trouble with it optical systems functioning in extreme weather conditions. In 2001, the Pentagon awarded EOTech, a subsidiary of L3 Communications, a contract of $24 million dollars for a holographic optical system. However, the program was plagued with problems, which were divulged until 2013. As a result, L3 Communications was forced to settled the matter with the Pentagon for $25.6 million. In a world where you're only as good as your last success, this doesn't bode well for L3 Communications.

In eight place is BAE System, a British company, which produces the M109A7 Self-propelled howitzer and M992A3 ammo carrier for the US Army and Marines Corp. A $245.3 million contract will upgrade the Paladin chassis system. As a bonus, it includes a "high voltage" gun drive and projectile ramming system for rapid hands-off loading. BAE Systems has 10,133 contracts worth $4.2 billion dollars. BAE also manufactures the MK-38 Mod-3 machine gun system for ships, the 40MK Naval Gun, and the 57MM Naval Gun, as well various control systems.

In ninth place comes something of a surprise, Humana, Inc. The Louisville, Kentucky based company provides healthcare for active duty, veterans, and their families through the TRICARE Health System. Humana has 206 contracts valued at $3.5 billion dollars. Other healthcare providers include Health Net, Inc, Merck & Company Inc, Cardinal Health Inc, Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline Inc, United Healthcare Group, and McKesson Corporation.

Finally, in tenth place is Bechtel Corporation with 201 contracts worth $4.6 billion dollars. Bechtel is a engineering, procurement, construction, and project management company; in fact, it is the largest American construction company and the eighth largest private corporation in the US. The company manages the majority of the US nuclear and national security related sites. Some of the sites it manages are the Hoover Dam, Los Alamos/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, San Francisco's BART or Bay Area Rapid Transport subway system, the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. They also manage key nuclear and transportation sites in places like Kuwait (Kuwaiti Oil Field Restoration), Saudi Arabia (Jubal Industrial City, the UK (the Chunnel and the high speed rail system), and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power plant Stabilization Project.

Of course, these are just the top ten defense contractors and doesn't include companies like Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, Hughes Corporation, Huntington Ingalls Industries, General Electric, Harris Corporation, General Atomics, or companies like Leidos which is a scientific, engineering and biological research company or the various pharmaceutical, laboratory, and technical research companies and universities . It also doesn't it touch the internationally based corporations which do business with the Pentagon such as Leonardo (UK), Thales Group (France), Airbus (EU), or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan).

I also have to point out that various lists have several of these companies ranked higher or lower, as well as adding some while not including others. These are based on current contracts and the needs of the military at a given time plus approval of the Pentagon's "wish list" for assorted projects. I've included some of the lists below in the references in case you want to compare rankings.

Nevertheless, the "military-industrial complex" is huge; practically no area of economy is not affected in one fashion or another. It includes information technology, medical, genetic and biological research, all specialties of engineering (but especially chemical, robotics and aerospace), computer science, psychology, and even (perhaps especially) academia. America, at present, is engaged in some form of conflict in approximately 75 countries either directly or indirectly with no sign of slowing down. If we were to actually run out of bombs or missiles (which is highly unlikely), we'd no doubt start dropping sacks of rocks! Face it, we're all tied to the war machine in one way or another.

Meanwhile, there are approximately 553,000 homeless people living in America with 186,000 being families; just over 40,000 of those are veterans, and some 95,000 individuals who are classified as "chronically" homeless (many of these suffer from some form of mental illness and/or addiction). Many of these individuals work, but simply don't earn enough to afford either an apartment or house due to the nature of their work while others simply don't qualify for any kind of aid for various reasons.

While the number of those in poverty has fallen over the last two years, there are still 40.6 million American living in poverty, which includes 13.3 million children according to the Marguerite Casey Foundation, with the overall poverty rate standing at 12.7%. 4.6 million seniors (65 and older) currently live in poverty (by the way, I'm specifically not separating by race because in my opinion, poverty is poverty regardless of skin color).

According to the association, Farmers & Hunters Feeding the Poor, 1 in 8 Americans struggle with having enough to eat; many are forced to choose between paying their bills--rent, heat, medical--or buying food. In 2016, 41% of major cities saw an increase in requests for emergency food assistance. Of that figure, 63% were families. 51% were currently employed, and 18% were elderly while 8% were homeless. In fact, the US has one of the highest poverty rate of any industrial nations in the world (we are ranked 29th out of 31 industrial countries according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

While this may offend some (too bad), there should be no excuse whatsoever for people going hungry in this country, especially children, the elderly, and handicapped. None. We export tons of food to other countries, and what doesn't go overseas often gets destroyed. There should never be a reason for unintentional homelessness in this country, particularly among our most vulnerable, I am especially irritated that we fail to take care of our veterans as well as we should, and instead spend billions on illegal immigrants and nations overseas ( we spend approximately $130 billion on illegal immigration and Trump signed off for $55.9 billion in foreign aid in the 2018 budget, which also includes money to help prop up various governments).

In June 2018, the US Senate voted to approved a budget of $716 billion dollars for the Pentagon, with an eye toward the $1 billion mark within the next few years. That's 17% of the entire US budget. It also represents a $82 billion dollar increase over its 2017 budget and despite that fact that we're nearing a $1 trillion dollar deficit. Meanwhile the Department of Health and Human Services will see its budget cut by 33%; HUD by 13% and the Department of Education by 14%. The Small Business Administration's cut is 5% but Labor Department's is 21%. The EPA will see a 31% cut in its budget. Something about that just doesn't seem right.

The US doles out billions of dollars to defense contractors in order to fund our never-ending "War on Terror", which often creates more enemies than we had before! Plus we shouldn't forget the "enemies" our intelligence agencies have manufactured for us either, usually to help overthrow some government that won't cooperate with the corporate puppet masters, the Oligarchy, which seems to control just about everything. Couldn't we drop a few thousand less bombs or build a few dozen less bombers, tanks, or war ships and spend it on those who could really use a helping hand up in this country?

Perhaps instead of trying to bomb whole populations back to the Stone Age (which is redundant since most are only a few steps removed to begin with), we should focus on building more schools, agricultural systems like proper farming and irrigation techniques; in short, teaching people how to be more self reliant. We should teach them basic healthcare techniques (such birth control and disease prevention), and let them decide what type of government they want. It seems that by helping people improve their lives (not doing it for them), the US could help build more friendly neighbors and spend less money on bombs. Who knows, perhaps the money we save could be used to improve our quality of life here at home.

The Top 9 biggest defense contractors in America

America's 15 biggest defense contractors

Top 100 Contractors of the U.S. federal government

List of defense contractors

All's Fair in Love Of War

The Military Industrial Complex. We've all heard the name. Some people see it as proof of America's supremacy. Others see it as a cancer. President Eisenhower warned us about it in his 1961 Farewell Address to the American Public. President John Kennedy alluded to it in his speech before the American Newspaper Publishers Association also in 1961 (Kennedy was assassinated in 1963). We have been at war in the Middle East almost continually since 1990, beginning with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and our subsequent liberation of Exxon and BP...err...I mean the Kuwaiti Royal Family and its people. The "War on Terror", which began in 2001, it has been going on ever since (technically, even longer. The first terror attack on US troops was in 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon following an earlier attack on a US Embassy).

America is "officially" at war (undeclared of course) with seven countries---Syria, Afghanistan, Niger, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya---thanks to the 2002 "Authorization for the Use of Military Force to Fight Al-Qaeda-linked militias". Never heard of it before? Yeah, don't be surprised. It was one of this "none-of-your-business" pieces of legislation passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attack. The AUMF, which mentions an additional six countries, contains no geographical restrictions, so US military might can be deployed anywhere at any time.

In fact, the bombing business is so good that the US is actually running out of bombs, seriously. The Pentagon is planning on investing an additional $20 billion dollars of its...I mean "our" money...in munitions as outlined in its 2018 budget. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the US has dropped approximately 1,186 munitions in just the first quarter of 2018. That's a lot folks. One key problem facing the Pentagon is that several of its suppliers simply can't keep up and have decided to quit the bomb making business. That places the Pentagon in a position where it is becoming more dependent of foreign suppliers and you'll never guess who one of those suppliers is?

Ok, I know you can't stand the suspense so I'll tell you. China. Yeah, you read that right. Communist China is one of our suppliers for munitions (now do you understand the Beltway uproar over President Trump placing tariffs on Chinese imports?). As for trying to create a broader market for all things that go bang, there really isn't any. With other suppliers dropping out, that leaves Lockheed Martin and Raytheon producing 97% of all the military's missiles and munitions (talk about businesses "to big to fail").

The Department of Defense (DoD) has publicly identified four critical areas of concern. The first is the production of solid rocket motors (SRMs). At present there are only two producers of SRMs, Orbital ATK and AeroJetRocketdyne, with Orbital ATK taking on the majority of the business. The next area is thermal batteries. These are used in every form of bombs and munitions employed by the US military. At present there is only one producer, which happens to dominate 80% of the market (the DoD declined to name the company).

Third on the critical list are fuses. Nothing goes "boom" without these. The DoD in typical bureaucratic Orwellian doublespeak says there are actually an excess of fuses available thanks to improvements elsewhere, however, it has also reduced the number of potential supplies. So apparently having to many fuses is a bad thing. Last on the list are small turbine engines. There currently only two producers of military grade turbines, Teledyne Turbine Engines and Williams International, however, Teledyne has announced that they're getting out of the business, which will leave the DoD with only one supplier (unless the Chinese want to step up). The DoD found that of 121 second tier suppliers of munitions, 98% of them were a single source provider. Of the 73 third tier providers, 98% of those were also single source. But wait, it gets more interesting.

The Pentagon has confirmed that it sole producer of a chemical propellant, Dimeryl Diisoyanate, which is used AIM-9X and AMRAAM missiles is quitting, thus leaving the military with no qualified producers. That means missiles stay in the launch tubes. Yikes! Another key component used by missiles is Dechlorane Plus 25, which is needed for insulation. Since there are no US producers, the US military has turned to the Belgian company Occidental Chemical, the only qualified producer.

However, despite the risks of being dependent on a foreign company for a key material, Occidental Chemical is itself dependent on a Chinese manufacturer that produces the pre-cursor needed to manufacture the propellant. According to the Chinese, its source has been exhausted and there is none left in the world. This is part of a growing trend faced by the Pentagon; increasingly shortages of chemicals needed to support various munitions and missiles, which is forcing the military to pay increasing prices as demand continues to grow while supply diminishes or simply evaporates altogether. The result is systems are having to be redesigned to find substitutes if possible or scraped.

As if this isn't bad enough for the Pentagon, spare parts for planes, tanks, truck, and other vehicles are in short supply. 22% of the Marine Corp's F-35's are grounded worldwide due to a lack of spare parts, reducing its readiness to only about 50% (one article cited a USAF pilot being grounded because a plastic clip on his helmet was broken and they couldn't get a spare clip from the supplier). The military, as a result, has gone into the scrounging business and looking for anything it use in so-called "boneyards" where old planes and other military equipment are consigned after reaching the end of their usefulness. They are also turning to other countries that we've sold weapons to and offering to buy back some of the spare parts. In a few cases, collectors have been contacted for possible leads. They are even raiding military museums for possible parts!

According to the Heritage Foundation's "2018 Assessment of US Military Strength", the US Army can field 31 Brigade Combat Teams (BCT). However, due to shortages of equipment and manpower, we have only three that are capable of "fighting tomorrow" and ten that are able to meet most of their assigned combat tasks (the military is suffering a personnel shortage due to the upswing in the economy, making jobs more plentiful. Another reason is that due to the numerous deployments and combat stress, a large number are leaving due to "burnout" and stress on the home lives, especially marriages). In addition, the report cites the need for an additional 19 BCTs (for a total of 50) just to meet historical requirements. The report indicated that the Army's capacity and capability are weak while its readiness is marginal.

The report also indicated that the US Navy's fleet is underpowered in the number of ships capable of extended deployment. Recently Congress had recommended a reduction in the total number of ships to pre-WWII levels. It goes on to recommend an increase to a 355 ship fleet from its current 305 and an increase to 13 aircraft carriers from the present 11. Attack submarines should be increased to 66 from their current number of 48, while surface ships need to go from 88 to 104. Deployment of aircraft carriers need to be extended to 36 months from the current 32 while surface ships need to match the carriers in deployment, going from 27 months to 36. Overall, both capacity and capability are scored as weak and readiness as marginal.

The Air Force has only four of its 32 combat coded squadrons fully combat capable. Less than 18 are able to complete the majority of its combat missions. Meanwhile, the Air Force, like all the other military branches is finding itself short of skilled personnel. In 2017, it was short 3400 aircraft engine and airframe mechanics. which in turn has grounded planes and thus reduced the number of flight hours pilots can get in for training and missions (along with the spare parts shortage), reducing its operational strength to 76%. In addition, the Air Force is depending on aging planes to meet its combat mission objectives. The reports gives the USAF a score of marginal for capacity, capability, and readiness.

Lastly, the US Marines. The Marines have long been the "tip of the spear" when it comes to boots on the ground anywhere in the world; America's shock troops. However, like the other military branches, it's faced with personnel shortages too. Normally, the USMC has been able to field 36 combat ready battalions. However, it is presently only able to field 24. It's main "combat platform" has been the M1A1/A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks (also used by the Army). When first deployed in the early 1980's, this tanks was the baddest piece of mechanized hardware on the battlefield anywhere in the world. However, despite updates, it has been surpassed by several newer and more lethal tanks including the Chinese Type 99A, the Israeli Merkava, the UK Challenger II, but most notably two Russian tanks, the T-90 and the Armata T-14. In addition to losing its main platform superiority, the Marines are suffering from shortages of spare parts like everyone else.

So, there you have. The US has been at war for 27 years, going back to "Operation Desert Storm" in 1991, which essentially can be broken down into four or five wars, depending on how you want to count our two invasions of Iraq. We are militarily involved in approximately 76 countries. George W Bush, who launched the "War on Terror" following the 9/11, resulting in the bombing of five countries or 70,000 bombs during his term. President Obama expanded the bombing to seven countries, which equated to 100,000 bombs. Under President Trump, approximately 44,000 bombs have fallen thus far, which equals around one bomb every 12 minutes according to one report.

The Pentagon requested and got a $716 billion dollar budget which the majority of both Republicans and Democrats approved. I have to wonder what else we could buy with just a fraction of that---more schools, cures for cancer and other diseases, repairing the nation's crumbling infrastructure , securing our border, improving the quality of healthcare, or more cops on the street? But here we are. We're dropping so many bombs that we're not only running out, but suppliers are quitting, and highly skilled military personnel are walking away.

There's also the argument that US intelligence agencies and the military conspired to create the enemies--the "terrorists"--and the concept of the never-ending war for profit to consider too. After all, these military contractors are among the most powerful lobbyists in Washington and among the Oligarchs who now run our country. We are now faced with a beast that is feeding on itself and its appetite is both ravenousness and insatiable. To quote from Shakespeare's Mark Anthony in the play Julius Caesar, "Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!" (Act 3 Scene 1), and so we have dear reader, we've allowed them to slip their leashes.


Timeline: US involvement with Iraq and the broader Middle East

US at war in 7 countries...

The US is running out of bombs and it may soon struggle to make more

An Assessment of US Military Power