is the west fighting a global war without end soon as the enemy and what defines victory in the greater middle east think tarion an ethnic conflicts or see rejecting borders imposed after the first world war the great unraveling of the west miele colonial project in the region and beyond is in play is this the meaning of the west's eternal war.

hello and welcome to crossfire all things are considered i'm peter lavelle is the west fighting a global war without end if this is the case who is the enemy what defines victory and what about borders in the greater middle east sectarian ethnic conflicts are seen rejecting borders imposed after the first world war the great unraveling of the west new colonial project in the region and beyond is in play is this the meaning of the west's eternal war. across not the politics of endless war i'm joined by my guest phyllis bennis in washington he is the director of the new internationalism project at the institute for policy studies and in new york we cross the odd abdel nor he is the founder and president of the us committee for a free lebanon or

a cross in fact that means you can jump in anytime you want fill us my go to you first here just recently president obama said at the national defense university about the war on terror we define we must define the nature and scope of this struggle or else it will define us how did you react to that because i think it already has defined us. well i think that part of the timing and the content of president obama's speech was very much bound up with this notion of looking forward what is going to be his legacy he was elected as an anti-war president he has ruled he has been in office as a war president and i think he's trying to reclaim at least through rhetoric his anti-war identity now the problem is of course there's a huge gap between what he says and what he's doing we know that just recently there was another drone strike in pakistan against and apparently against a leader of the pakistani taliban who no one in the u.s.

believes are a threat to the united states very much a threat to the pakistani government and this is exactly the opposite of how president obama described what would be his new policy on drones for instance so i think what we're looking at is a continuation of war and we have to look at what's different and what's the same about what these wars are about because it be earlier wars the wars have a huge amount to do with resources and a huge amount to do with power that means they are wars fought over oil and water and they are wars fought over military bases and the ability to strike alleged or actual opponents or enemies in that context this war the long war the global war on terror whatever name you want to give it isn't fought in such a different way then the cold war which was fought in very hot wars around the world where the two main protagonists the u.s. and then at that time of course the soviet union did not fight each other they

fought each other to the last angola and they fought each other to the last nicaraguan they fought each other to the last salvadoran we're seeing this very much now in in syria where there are at least five wars being waged only one of which is the war between some of the people of syria and a regime that has been so terribly hot. craddick and brutal so this is a period where issues of resources are still in play issues of military bases are still in play issues of the ability to fight someone else from someone else's territory are still in play those things haven't changed so what do you think about that i mean it's interesting i've noticed and some of the alternative press that there's a big debate what to call this war what would you call it the eternal war the war against islam the war against the middle east what is that in your mind. ok i we tend to agree on lots of things what phyllis is saying it is definitely

a war over natural resources frankly to be to be very candid with you there's not much difference between. bush and obama same things going on again we bush went after iraq over oil or bomb is going after syria over natural gas there's a pipeline in natural gas it's a long story is going over natural gas all of this talk about installing democracy human rights that's a cover larry need cover but people you know know what's happening these days. look frankly i'm appalled by the arrogance of the united states we are a nation that's pretty much back sixteen trillion dollars in debt and we want to dictate to people what to do and how to behave i've yet to see you know i mean i've fully against islamic extremism but there's nothing wrong with the muslim world in

a lot of muslims are you know very low or low about being citizens just to give an example the middle east today i'm talking as a businessman here as a capitalist has around fifteen to eighteen trillion dollars in surplus china has around eighteen to twenty dollars in surplus so if you add both that's around thirty plus trillion dollars in surplus and i've yet to see any media outlet every time they talk about the middle east is about terrorism and islamism you know they're always demonizing the middle east terrorism islamism we have to teach them what to do we have to tell them how to how to behave we have to teach them about democracy and such is that the only way to do so is that the only way to sell this war and i want to ask it was the same question is that the only way sell it's p.r. go ahead well well well. unfortunately it looks like but you know what i'm trying to say the point i'm going to do excuse me if i may is

that you know there was a way of attracting direct investments from the middle east from charlie not here in the u.s. not to buy. bonds snorts to treasuries but rather to invest here rather than borrowing you know we have to open up or whereby there was a lot of good happening you know in the middle east in china and we can't we have to stop demonizing. the u.s. in its own lines of continue to destroy all these countries how do you invest there phyllis please jump in i mean one disaster after another you know i just want to take issue i want to take issue with one important thing that you were talking about c.r. the you cannot look simply at the amount of money available in any country and say that means things are good one of the huge most important reasons for the arab spring that has moved across the arab world on the economic side certainly these were primarily political revolutionary processes focusing on dictatorships but

behind that was the whole notion of the inaccessibility the lack of access of ordinary people to the wealth of their country you know you see that when you see people in bahrain. that are rising up you see it in the beginnings of uprisings in saudi arabia in dangerously for the saudi regime in the east where the where the oil and the oil is but but the point is wait wait let me just finish you cannot simply look at how much money they have and assume that people have access to that when you have wealth side by side with poverty just as when you have powerful side by side with disempowered people you are going to have clashes and that's very much what we're seeing now i think that what the u.s. is involved with is trying to make good on its own economy on its own dealing with its own financial crisis here without giving up the perks of empire if you will they're trying to do empire on the cheap zero jump in. nobody's looking at me

nobody is looking at a one dimensional approach i agree with you on that however money is a big factor. the power and the economic power of the middle east is a big factor a lot of money controlled by the sovereign wealth fund we have to change the dialogue the kind of dialogue every time we talk about the middle east we can't just talk about islamism and terrorism and wars there's a lot of positive stuff that's happening in the middle east and we have to put it in a light we look at the end of the day what these people are seeking is to be respected recognized and part of the global you know civilized group of nations but i think you know that you see i want to be one think that it's a good chance that's a good bit fillets that's not being allowed to happen. that's what i'm getting at is outside intervention as i see them i think a little harsh but that's exactly the problem ok because. i think that ziad is

right on this it's not being allowed to happen but i also think that we have to be clear about who are the people of the middle east going what are they facing you know if you look at the gulf countries the last area where the the arab spring has not yet hit the closest allies now of the united states saudi arabia cutter the u.a.e. oman the little gulf states where all the oil and none of the people are you know you have situations like the u.a.e. the entire population of the united arab emirates is something like two hundred thousand people it's less than my neighborhood here in washington d.c. sitting on billions and billions of gallons of oil that people in those countries who are oppressed financially are not the citizens of the u.a.e. it's the guest workers so-called that are brought in from the poorest countries in the world from bangladesh from the philippines from india who have no rights who's passports are often taken from them who face a constant battle against abusive employers and they are the ones who have know

their lady even to mobilize in what would be the next version of the arab spring. do you want to jump in there those are the most important why was the united states is in the region. right excuse me we're talking here about promoting american economic interest not the economic interests of the lay man in the middle east of course that's important but all the paul i'm not talking about our policy in the middle east is promoting our interests i was security interests our economic interests our corporations and interests was is not defined not my interests corporations are ok ok it's not my interests like interests of u.s. corporations but i mean u.s. interests are not being advanced by these interventions ziyad u.s. interests are not being absent u.s. economic corporation and other interests are not being advised by the policies we're applying and the approach we're taking towards the middle east it comes completely at odds with basically saying something with i went on doing what you

said was you go ahead fellows go ahead fellows there the one big exception is the huge influential industry known as the arms industry hugo they are the ones who benefit when the who has intervened i put it if you look at the model for example out here is that of the u.s. in the in the iran your own war you had the us sitting back and saying kill all each other's young men use up each other's treasuries and we will go in on the side of the weaker power that was saddam hussein's iraq to make sure that it stays more or less even so that the war will continue it's what we're seeing right now in places like syria whichever side wins who benefits follow the money the benefits go to the arms dealers the arms industry the arms producers so that becomes a very useful thing so the notion that all right we're going to jump in here economic we're going to go to was short break we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion of washington's open ended war state of the art.

we've received. well. science technology innovation all the latest developments around russia we've got this huge earth covered. the worst. white house of. never seen anything like this i'm cold.

mission three could you take three. more charges. to make amends three. three. three.

moseley braun video for your media project a free media oh don carty dot com. welcome back to cross talk we're all things are considered i'm peter lavelle remind you we're talking about the eternal war. ok fellas i'd like to go back to you it seems to me the way this war whatever we call it the way it's being fought only creates more enemies as it goes on it's a self-fulfilling more it creates more and more enemies as it goes along it is indeed. it is indeed

a self-fulfilling war we hear this from even those in the cia and other agencies who are responsible for drone strikes for assassinations this is a war that has seen at the institutionalized level the transformation of how the u.s. wages war from relying on ground troops to relying on planes to relying on drones and assassination teams we are really in that stage now where war is defined as assassination by by military force and i think that is a very serious. shift but we are at the same time hearing even from those who carry out that was new policies the policies of assassination the policies of drone strikes with all of the resulting attacks on civilians as well as these so-called target on the alleged kill list and of an appalling notion that the white house every tuesday morning sits down to draft who was on the kill list this week but

they do and those same people acknowledge as president obama did in his recent speech that. using drones to kill terrorists creates enemies as well they admit this but they are not prepared to change it that's the huge contradiction that's why you do have to look beyond the stated policy to the question of who benefits and there you come back to the arms industry they benefit when war continues every time a drone gets shot down you need to build a new one every time a plane loses a wing or whatever you have to build a new one every bomb that gets dropped you have to replace it with a new and better and more expensive bomb so who benefits from this the c.e.o.'s and the shareholders of those arms industries not the workers they're not doing so well in this country but those who own those production facilities they're the ones that are as they say making a killing ziyad but it can't go on forever because it's taxpayer money ok it can't

empire is expensive ultimately i. know it's going to go on forever i mean i agree with this on the military infrastructure is the sole benefit the bigger benefit of all but you know there are a lot of industries out there who are not who are not benefiting i told just to give you an example i mean today banks on not lending private equity firms are becoming even more risk averse than banks in terms of providing of the capital for companies to grow i know that because i'm involved in number of deals he with us in the energy business etc most of the money that's coming is coming from overseas but this is a tiny part i think we should encourage we should change our policies to encourage the flows of money from the cap of the surplus countries to invest in the u.s. by doing that you have bridging the gap and you coming to an understanding to

a better understanding of the cultures of the benefits etc talk is cheap you can go state by. he says do whatever the law is the idea is all about you know actually drones really speak very loudly don't think i mean a balance it doesn't mean i just want to say being on the ok it's ridiculous that's what i'm saying this policy it's the opposite it would because those are on the stand there i'm saying this policy one sided one by a bunch of policy is wrong is how you get the wrong direction is going to go to war you're going to create ok until you say let's learning more and more trouble unless one is going to come to our streets go ahead phyllis look at the end of the end of a dime that we are destroyed where the money truly i would argue is only it is not what we call in washington talking about that comes to us we don't learn to become economic to us is going to stop us when we don't need go we don't need more money in this country we have plenty of money my institute did a study just

a couple of months ago this year's version called we're not broke there is plenty of money in this country to provide everyone with good health care with top class education with all of the things that we need particularly jobs the problem is the money is being used badly and controlled by too few people in too few banks and big corporations that's the problem it's the concentration of what i'm seeing lacking and using it for just because it's going it's on the floor by we don't need more money from other poor countries the united states is still the wealthiest country in the world number one and we don't need more money we need to change our habits now that go you know that money well we're getting pretty young we're getting on the biggest market we're getting also talked to a carrier up there getting off topic grow on trees ok go back you know i look at things are not contradictory we are creating an empire that is based on something that is an illusion that we can have war on the cheap the cost of war it is now

estimated to be between five and six trillion dollars that we will be paying alternately for the iraq and afghanistan war. there's not the three trillion that so outraged supporters of the war who said all that can't be true turns out no they were right it wasn't true what was true was it's almost twice that by the time we figure in the lifetime cost of taking care of us veterans this is before one dime is spent on the reparations and compensation that we owe to the people of iraq and afghanistan for what we have done to their countries this is when in the midst of the israelis claiming that we should exempt the thirty billion dollars military aid to israel from being cut back as every other us program is being cut back in the sequester they should be exempt because they are such good friends this is in the context of the money that is spent on war that is no longer available for jobs for schools for health care for advanced education for any of the things that

are now being cut back at such dramatic levels across this country the reason that we have forty million people without health insurance the reason that we have fifty million people in this country every day who go to sleep not knowing whether they will have food the next day in the country with the biggest economy in the world this is the is the higher of what the cost of this war the cost of our our efforts at empire have left us with to examine an empire doesn't really work out very well i mean particularly in the middle east go ahead i cannot agree i fully agree we all agree on but if you want to change it from oprah war to what what i'm trying to say is that change it from a pool war to a pro economy and don't tell me we don't need other people's money when people commonly invest you bridge the gap and you temper the tension and you engage with them in an economic discourse in economy discussions you know that's where i know

you don't have a corporations talking to each other on the people in both countries. left behind. i know that is not so sure i'd also like to do i go to. the other. you know the the local parish it is not a lot of money would our not. not want to know. we're not getting anywhere here ok phillips why does the u.s. constantly talk about democracy and bringing freedom to people around the world when it's so obviously hypocritical when you look at saudi arabia and bahrain and things like that i mean these are known things and it's not hard to find out go ahead explain to me why that happens. these these are not as you say these are not know unknown realities you know the u.s. picks and chooses where it uses the claim of democratization it uses it most often in the middle east where there are very clear examples of civil and political

rights that are completely denied in all the gulf states and you know the notion of an absolute monarchy which we think of as as so outdated at this point but part of it i think peter comes from what we call american exceptionalism which has been a part of us culture since white people from europe settled on this land and wiped out the native population here the claim was we are different we can do this we can wipe out native people because we are better we're whether it's because we're white we're christian i mean those of us who aren't christian may have something to say about that but those people who are white who were brought here as slaves may have something to say about that but the image is we are a white christian country the images of the western expansion what was known as manifest destiny this is the destiny of we white europeans that came here to take this land we are better than everybody else and that's what's taught to children in school that's what the the framework of the idiology of american patriotism is

based on it's not based on. the beautiful it's based on america the best we are the strongest the biggest and we have the right because we are the strongest and the biggest and the richest we have the right to tell everybody else what to do so if we look at one country if we look at. syria and say well it's not democratic well of course it's not democratic that's why we were able to use the syrian regime as a tool to to torture detainees that were sent at the request of the obama of the bush administration to be. in the context of the global war on terror that's why the father of the current president when he was president agreed to send syrian planes to attack iraq in the u.s. first war against iraq in one nine hundred ninety one it's because the u.s. can make those demands saying if you don't do this there will be consequences you

will pay a price for refusing to do what we want you to do because we are the best we are the shining city on the hill but it doesn't usually work out ok the last ten years it hasn't panned out too well known for anybody so you want to jump in on that one . well look i mean look i mean look what we're doing today this is what the romans thought this is why the brits thought look what happened to them and we heading in the same direction this arrogance we're the best we're wired we're brought us and with this with that we're bankrupt we have sixteen trillion dollars in debt we're totally in it in the wrong direction and we have more enemies than ever and we're still keeping the course and doing the same thing unfortunately again and again nobody wants to listen and this is how the they going forward you know i mean we're not learning from our mistakes we're not learning from history we're not learning from anything and we treat everyone else like they should look at i mean you know

what we're not a model from an economic point of view obviously because we ran our economy to the ground so we can go and talk to other country regarding all this stuff about democracy it's a proverb it's all about that your resources nothing to do with democracy installing democracy on this and that it's all a cover for consumption for public consumption to see that a lot of the journalists here we are entering again it ended on a very depressing note here many thanks again i guess in washington and in new york and thanks to our viewers for watching us here darkie see you next time and remember cross talk rules. leave.

me it is easy to be. distributed to. see. you know how sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then he limps something else you hear sees some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture. of. the fire.

so. you live on one hundred thirty three bucks a month for food because you know how bad the less bad luck i got so. i mean. i know that i'm still really messed up. in the old story so closely. the. worst year for the little. white house to give it to a radio guy in fort lauderdale minestrone. what clothes were obliged to give you never seen anything like this i'm telling. you. what i mean martin well guys we've got a packed show for you today.