EDF: EU plan to beef up military prompts battle of words over Nato - by Rob Cameron

Britain remains firmly opposed to any move towards creating an EU army, Sir Michael Fallon said, as it would simply undermine Nato.

And yet it wasn't on the agenda when EU defence ministers met in Slovakia and barely anyone is talking about the idea. There are no plans for legions of Eurotroops decked out in helmets emblazoned with yellow stars on a blue background.

It's difficult, indeed pointless, to oppose something that doesn't exist and isn't being suggested. But that's the problem with the argument over the EU's future military capabilities; for now it's a battle of semantics, a war of words.

Instead the official agenda here in Bratislava spoke of "the EU Global Strategy and its synergies and sequencing with the Commission-led EDAP".

France and Germany presented proposals that would include joint development of military hardware such as helicopters and drones, expanding the EU's peace-keeping missions and, most contentiously of all, establishing a permanent joint European military HQ.

Germany insists that the idea has nothing to do with a European army.

"It is not aimed against Nato," said Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen. "On the contrary, we need a strong Europe and whatever strengthens Europe in defence also strengthens Nato."

And those words were underlined by Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who told reporters at the meeting that there was "no contradiction between strong European defence and a strong Nato". The importance lay in avoiding duplication, he said.

Yet when he stepped out of the meeting, the UK defence secretary said that 12 countries had spoken and half were against the EU military headquarters, including Sweden, the Netherlands, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. The BBC couldn't immediately verify that.

But for Sir Michael Fallon there's already much to dislike.

Note EU-Digest: In all this one should ask what business it is of Britain, after BREXIT, to question  anything the EU contemplates or plans to do.  Hopefully the EU political leadership will make it clear to Britain they can't have their cake and eat it also.


Read more: EU plan to beef up military prompts battle of words over Nato - BBC News

Global Competitiveness: 'The Netherlands rises again in global competitiveness ranking'

The Netherlands is the most competitive country within the European Union, the NRC said on Tuesday, quoting the latest Global Competitiveness Index by the World Economic Forum.

The ranking puts the Netherlands in fourth place behind Switzerland, the US and Singapore, a rise of one place over last year’s ranking, the NRC said.

The ranking is not yet available on the forum’s website. Germany was in fourth place last year.

The Netherlands thanks its high ranking to its healthcare, education system, efficient infrastructure, and focus on innovation and technology, the paper quotes the report as saying.

Read more: 'The Netherlands rises again in global competitiveness ranking' - DutchNews.nl

USA: The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War - by Robert Crawford

To start with a quick overview of our present situation. Most of you are familiar with this recent history; yet, it bears repeating. For 15 years now, since 2001, the US has been at war.

The longest single battlefield has been the war in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan Tribal Areas. It has spanned two administrations. The Taliban remains undefeated and is gaining ground and war lords pursue their own political and military agendas.

The 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, now almost universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest military mistakes in recent times, has virtually destroyed a country that had been created by the imperial powers during WWI. Warfare between a Shia dominated Iraqi government and the Sunnis—now mostly controlled by ISIS—has become a struggle for territory and cities. This war has been internationalized.

The Syrian civil war, which has become another international war, continues its rising death toll and propels the greatest refugee crisis since WWII.

The U.S., British and French air war on Gadhafi’s Libya in 2011 has resulted in another failed state, ongoing civil war, and more U.S. and allied bombing.

Insurgencies in Yemen, Somalia, northern Nigeria, along with military attempts to suppress them continue to cause huge numbers of civilian casualties and further displacement. These conflicts have also been internationalized.

Since 2006, the Israeli siege of Gaza and the essentially one-sided warfare against Hamas, culminating in the brutal assault of 2014, has caused extraordinary suffering. The government-backed settler land grab in the West Bank makes the prospects of a just peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians more remote. In all these wars, civilians are the primary victims.

As you know, the US is neck deep in this descent into perpetual and proliferating warfare. Historian Andrew Bacevich calls it America’s WWIV. Despite repeated military failures and negative unanticipated consequences, the US still pursues the illusion that it can shape the contemporary Middle East through a combination of drone warfare, bombing, Special Operations and other covert actions. It continues to invest heavily in the militaries of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and other U.S. allies.

American military dominance (which must be distinguished from effectiveness) is the most fundamental fact of today’s international order. The U.S., after all, maintains a projection of global power with hundreds of thousands troops stationed abroad” who occupy or use “some 761 ‘sites’ in 39 countries”—what critic Chalmers Johnson called “an empire of bases.”

Anyone with eyes wide open must come to this topic with more questions than answers—to say nothing about the burden of grief and even despair that many of us carry. I continue to struggle with both the questions and the difficult emotions.

For those of us hoping for a more peaceful world and a more peaceful American foreign policy, the core political question—what is to be done?—is perplexing. As long as American soldiers are not dying in significant numbers, Americans, for the most part, seem uninterested—and certainly uniformed—about US wars and their consequences. The corporate controlled media are no help; instead, they do everything possible to hinder understanding and serious debate. Historical amnesia is a particularly American affliction. Each of these obstacles are serious problems we need to confront.

My topic, here, is the political rhetoric of the 2016 presidential election. Even though it is a small part of the puzzle, the rhetoric of the presidential candidates reveals a great deal about the historical moment and the larger forces that shape this nation’s perpetual wars.

My first contention is that there is an ideology of militarism that dominates our political culture and it is being perpetuated by both the Democratic and Republican nominees for president, despite their significant differences.

We know or should know how militarist ideology exploits our fears of terrorism, and perpetuates the illusion that our safety depends on the worldwide projection and use of military power.

We know or should know that this ideology was developed and honed throughout the Cold War and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the national security establishment had to find a new enemy to justify its continued rule.

We know or should know that militarism is an ideology that denies its own contributions to the continual escalation of violence in the Middle East and to terrorist attacks in the West.

Note EU-Digest: What is probably most amazing, reading the above report, is that the EU member states don't need to be geniuses to figure out that something in the equation related to their US servitude, when it comes to US foreign and military policies, has not only been a complete failure, but also a financial drain on their budgets. Europe, and specially the EU needs to seriously start thinking about developing its own more independent foreign policy and stop supporting US military adventures whereever they may occur.  

Read more: The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War

The US Presidential Debates: America's number one reality show for 2016

The presidential election race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton features plenty of B.S., renowned philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt tells DW in an interview. That it has become so commonplace in political discourse is a bad sign.

All politicians are in the business of manipulating opinions and attitudes. Hence, all politicians characteristically submit to the temptation to B.S. This applies both to Trump and to Clinton. However, Trump and Clinton differ in the degrees to which they indulge in B.S. Trump engages in B.S. far more often than does Clinton. When he is not engaged in bull…….., moreover, he is quite commonly lying.

Clinton also lies, but not so much. Moreover, she is not indifferent to the fact that she is lying, as Trump most often is. When she is caught in a lie, she is generally embarrassed, or she tries to explain that it is not exactly a lie. When Trump is caught either in B.S. or in a lie, he is not at all embarrassed. He merely repeats the same B.S. or the same lie.

Read more: Expert: On B.S. Donald Trump bests Hillary Clinton | News | DW.COM | 26.09.2016

POLAND: population rejects Right-Win Gpvernment pplicies

Tens of thousands march against right-wing government in Poland Tens of thousands of protesters hit the streets of the Polish capital Warsaw Saturday to rally against moves by the rightwing Law and Justice government that they say undermine the rule of law. http://f24.my/2d0wqZg

Outer Space: colonizing Mars

Elon Musk To Share His Mars Colonization Plans http://flip.it/3UH.-o

Saudi Arabia: Money, not morality speaks in America when it comes to supporting the weapons industry

US Senate refuses to block Saudi Arabia arms sale http://flip.it/kxEmXA