Pentagon to Use Genetic Code to Identify Perfect Soldier?

by Joe Wolverton, II
The New American
January 24, 2011

Old soldiers never die, they just pass on their genetic code?

A report issued by a defense science advisory panel suggests that the Pentagon may begin collecting DNA from military personnel to identify the genome sequence that defines a good soldier. Findings reported by JASON, an independent group of scientists which advises the U.S. government on matters of science and technology, recommends that the Pentagon take advantage of “the rapidly falling cost of gene sequencing by preparing to engage in the mass sequencing of the genomes” of the men and women of the armed forces.

From the movie Captain America

The physicists, biologists, chemists, oceanographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists that comprise the JASON project, point out that the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have access to an untapped source of valuable genetic information and are “uniquely positioned to make great advances” in the science of genetic research in this crucial field. Specifically mentioned are the decades of archived medical records and DNA samples already on file at the VA.

A commentary on the report published by the ACLU claims:

Specifically, the report recommends that the Pentagon begin collecting [and] sequencing soldiers’ DNA for “diagnostic and predictive applications.” It recommends that the military begin seeking correlations between soldiers’ genotypes and phenotypes (outward characteristics) “of relevance to the military” in order to correlate the two. And the report says — without offering details — that both “offensive and defensive military operations” could be affected.

The privacy concerns of such a program are obvious. The threshold question that the Pentagon would have to answer would be whether the collection of such samples (whether archival, contemporary, or future) presents a thorny legal problem in that the blood or other substances derived from the body of subjects is the property of that subject and therefore protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.

Congress has legislated in this general area. In 2008, Congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which prohibits group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging that person higher premiums based solely on a person’s genetic predisposition to the possible of development of disease. The law also bars employers from using individuals’ genetic information when making personnel decisions.

While GINA does not apply to the military, it is certainly an indication of the opposition any similar use of genome sequences would face in Congress were the Defense Department to attempt such a project.

Regardless of whether the DoD makes such use of the DNA of soldiers, airmen, and marines, there is no doubt as to the surprising amount of such data already under the control of the Pentagon.

As reported in an article published in the American Journal of Human Genetics:

Currently, DoD collects and uses the genetic information of service members in several ways. All U.S. service members, including active duty and reserve military personnel, must provide a DNA sample that may be used to identify their remains should they die in battle (see Armed Forces Institute of Pathology database online). These samples are housed in the Armed Forces Repository of Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains. As of 2002, the United States military’s DNA repository contained 3.2 million samples.

Inarguably, the accurate identification of battlefield casualties is an appropriate use of DNA material; however, the use of that very personal data as a sample for compiling the specific genetic code of the perfect soldier is much more controversial for a few reasons.

First, there is the question of how the Pentagon would use the identification of the sequence. Would this or that recruit be placed in the infantry rather than in a support billet based solely on his genetic code?

Second, there is the irrefutable scientific fact that a person’s genetic code is only one factor is his behavior. Apart from DNA, there are cultural, education, and other influences that also affect the way a person reacts to his surroundings and to the challenges he faces.

The ACLU article makes a good point regarding the potential abuses latent in such a controversial project:

If the Pentagon has strong, nonspeculative reasons to believe that genetic research could help military effectiveness, or if it wants to make use of genetics to help with medical care just like the rest of the medical world, then let it operate in exactly the same way that civilian scientists would, under accepted scientific protocols, including meaningful informed consent, Institutional Review Boards, and other accepted standards of human-subject research.

Soldiers, having signed away many of their rights upon enlistment, should not be used for research that would not otherwise comport with our values, just because they are conveniently available.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this report and the suggestions made therein is the uses to which this data could be put by a government intent on singling out a particular group from among its citizens. As has been chronicled many times by The New American, the government of the United Kingdom has amassed a database that is the most extensive in any developed nation. The database was established in 1995 and is the world’s largest. It contains the DNA material of over five million Britons, a figure that represents 8 percent of the population of England and Wales. The recording system was initially developed ostensibly to aid the police in the investigation of crime scenes and function as a “vital crime-fighting tool” in tracking down elusive offenders.

Should the government of the United States or any agency thereof begin cataloging the DNA of military servicemen, the balkanization of Americans may be accomplished not just by ethnicity, but also by one’s genetic predisposition to accept the tyrannical abolition of freedom.

Governments Mask Internet Lock Down with ‘Convenience’

Obama readying Internet ID for Americans.  Will it be mirrored elsewhere?

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
January 10, 2011

Efforts to accelerate internet control and ´harmonize´ standards has taken a leap forward.  United States president  Barack Obama has proposed that the Commerce Department head a cybersecurity initiative to come up with an internet ID for all Americans.

Although the government has called this proposal a way to decentralize security on the web, the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator, Howard Schmidt labeled it ‘the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government’  to centralize policy to create an ‘identity ecosystem’.

In addition to masking this new attempt as a convenient measure for internet users, the U.S. government wants to divert attention by placing the Commerce Department at the forefront.  According to CNET.com, the fact it’s the Commerce Department and not Homeland Security or the National Security Agency the ones supervising the project, it means that the government does not intend to exercise control whatsoever, but instead it will play the role of an ‘organizer’.  But the move does not please anyone.  Government intervention has proven to be a bad idea in almost all matters.  The Internet has been successful due to the fact it is free.  What other proof do the controllers and their advocates need to understand it?

Government control over any aspect of the world wide web does not need to be direct or offensive in order to be effective.  But if more conclusive proof is necessary to show an explicit intention to control the web, skeptics need nothing more than to read the Cybersecurity Act.  Privacy and civil rights groups should be worried, and so does everyone else.  This seemingly mild initiatives are the start of what governments, politicians and private industry heads have been calling for:  complete control of the internet, its protocols and content.

‘The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Mr. Schmidt spoke,’ cites CNET.  With this announcement, it is clear the Obama administration is looking forward to implementing the directives contained in the Cybersecurity Act which include government control over who accesses, navigates, posts content and monitors the net.  The law also gives the president, whoever it is, the power to simply shut down the web if it considers it necessary to protect national security interests.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, says the government is not talking about a national ID card.   “We are not talking about a government-controlled system.  What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities.”

Another fallacy in regards to an Internet ID is that there will not be a centralized database.  The government already keeps databases and no-fly lists on anyone it wants.  Another database would not be a surprise.  The creation of an ID will be like the social security number for the Internet.  It will be the instrument by which all web-based activities will be registered and kept for further snooping.  All sales, purchases, exchanges and other activity will be stored.  This internet ID will be probably merged with the National and / or International ID Card to reveal a unique identity by which all people will be accounted for.

The statement that anonymity or pseudoanonimity will still be possible is hilarious.  It is not possible as things stand today.  Can anyone believe that the controllers in the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and the NSA will let the Commerce folks pull the strings of the strongest beacon of liberty in the planet?  I doubt it.  There´s no need for public or private rivalry among government agencies for the public to notice who controls what.

In 2009, the director of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity Center, resigned saying that the NSA effectively controlled the cyber world though the use of , among other things, ‘technology insertions’.

Deceitful Speech

In an article posted on Wired.com, writer Ryan Singel begins his thoughts by saying that an internet ID will be useful to dodge the ‘nightmare of trying to control your online identity’.  Singel´s complete article is here.  What he labels as a better way to deal with internet threats and inconveniences, is nothing more than what search engines and known social networks have already implemented: The ability to use one password to access several websites and their services.  He cites Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo, among others.

But if this tool already exists, why do we need the government to create another one?  “One can also imagine having an identity provider that enables you to tie your home address, e-mail address and mobile phone number together so you could securely log in to the Social Security Administration and request a new Social Security card. The government would be able to mail the card to your house, with strong assurance you actually live at that address.”  If this does not spell centralization, I don’t know what would.

As many privacy advocates point out, the government does not have a way to pull this off by itself.  That is why private enterprises are the ones that offered it to consumers.  What the government’s inability means, is that private corporations will be empowered and legally enabled to collect, store and basically do whatever they want with any and all private information.  Not that this does not happen already.

Obama: Train my Gestapo in Afghanistan. U.S. Next?

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 1, 2010

Much of the thuggery used in the United States today was experienced tried out outside the U.S. first.  The use sound cannons is one example of those.  Monitoring large areas with drones and blowing up innocent people is another example.  But a third a most important is the U.S. president’s Gestapo armed forces.  Department of Defense Directive 1404.10, dated January 23, 2009, set up a “Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” that would “be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; drug interdiction; and stability operations

Of course Obama does not identify this paramilitary force as a Gestapo. He prefers to call it a civilian military force.

His pretext to form and finance his dreamed army is that the U.S. Army is overworked due to the multiple conflicts the country is involved in. He said on Wednesday that U.S. soldiers could use the assistance of a civilian workforce to help in relief efforts in Afghanistan. Speaking in Wisconsin, the president said it was a great idea to send his Gestapo force to help soldiers to carry out tasks such as building infrastructure.

What good is a military force if it cannot be trained properly in real life scenarios? Obviously, that kind of training cannot be achieved in the US. At least for now. So, Obama finds it correct to send civilians with weapons to combat zones to aid the U.S. Military. “So what I’m trying to say is, don’t put all the burden on the military.  Make sure that we’ve got a civilian expeditionary force,” said the president. He added that the civilian force would be in charge of building schools, bridges and roads in regions labeled by the military as safe. Unless news reports are wrong, the only moderately safe area is Afghanistan’s ‘green zone’. As the news media have reported, attacks and violence in that country have increased. Not even the payoffs given by the U.S. with tax payer money have calmed down the attacks. Not even the fact that the U.S. is promoting the cultivation of opium and all the corruption that arises from it has made it easier to stabilize a country taken over by criminals; many who work with the U.S. Military.

A Department of Defense directive, Directive 1404.10, dated January 23, 2009, set up a “Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” created to, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations.” If the U.S. Army is unable to bring stability, relief, order or any other kind of positive results to Afghanistan, how can the president think a civilian force will be able to build homes and bridges?

Obama’ s intention is not to facilitate the work of the military in Afghanistan. He wants to extend the U.S. occupation there. He wants to get innocent American civilians killed in a country where not even the thoroughly trained, most powerful military in the world can deal with the violence and resistance. He wants to train his Gestapo force in Afghanistan so it can later come to the U.S. and treat the citizens with the same hatred and disrespect as they will have to treat Afghan rebels and criminals. Sending a civilian force to Afghanistan is a way to further desensitize armed forces to commit in the United States the same crimes they commit there. What Obama wants is not to let a crisis go to waste.

Obama first expressed his idea of forming a military force during the campaign for his presidential run. He connected it to what he called national service, which Rahm Emanuel later detailed as a mandatory recruitment of civilians. “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.” In other words, we will turn the country into a complete surveillance state, whereby citizens will rat on each other for the benefit of the centralized government he would head. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Given the fact the military has had problems recruiting, what a better idea than to force citizens to serve in the military so they can easily be shipped abroad into combat zones? Or maybe within the United States, where they will become an unofficial Gestapo force for the Führer? It’s been a year and a half since Obama took office and I haven’t seen any news of any civilian security force aiding poor neighborhoods, hurricane or tornado victims or down in the gulf coast helping to clean the disaster caused by Obama’s close friends at BP. Why not? Is it not what such force is supposed to be doing? Is their training not finished yet? “…a Veterans Corps to assist veterans at hospitals, nursing homes and homeless shelters; and a Homeland Security Corps to help communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies.” Is it not the Gulf Oil Spill an Emergency?

If heavily armed civilians in power trips is not a cause of concern for anyone, I have to say they deserve the Fascism they will get. The civilian security force is not an example of “soft power” as Defense Secretary Robert Gates called them. Remember Obama’s statement? “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” To my colleagues at the Raw Story, it is time you stopped laughing and start acting like the responsible media outlet you want to become. Centralized power has never and will never result in better living conditions. Ask history. Ask the Chinese, the Jews and the Muslims.

By the way, since when is a Republic governed with military directives?

The Militarization of Outer Space: The Pentagon’s “Space Warriors”

Air Force Raises the Stakes for a New Arms Race

Global Research

It’s not as if things aren’t bad enough right here on planet earth.space war

What with multiple wars and occupations, an accelerating economic meltdown, corporate malfeasance and environmental catastrophes such as the petroleum-fueled apocalypse in the Gulf of Mexico, I’d say we have a full plate already.

Now the Defense Department wants to up the stakes with new, destabilizing weapons systems that will transform low- and high-earth orbit into another “battlespace,” pouring billions into programs to achieve what Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) has long dreamed of: “space dominance.”

Indeed, Pentagon space warriors fully intend to field a robust anti-satellite (ASAT) capability that can disable, damage or destroy the satellites of other nations, all for “defensive” purposes, mind you.

Back in 2005, The New York Times reported that General Lance W. Lord, then commander of AFSPC, told an Air Force conference that “space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny. … Space superiority is our day-to-day mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future.”

Five years on, that “mission” is still a top priority for the Obama administration. While some might call it “net-centric warfare” on steroids, I’d choose another word: madness.

Air Force X-37B

On April 22, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) successfully launched its robot space shuttle, the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV), from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

Sitting atop a Lockheed Martin Atlas V rocket, the unmanned, reusable space plane roared into orbit after more than ten years of development by Boeing Corporation’s “Phantom Works” black projects shop.

The successful orbital insertion of the X-37B was the culmination of a decades’ long dream by the Department of Defense: to field a reusable spacecraft that combines an airplane’s agility with the means to travel at 5 miles per second in orbit.

From the Pentagon’s point of view, a craft such as the X-37B may be the harbinger of things to come: a johnny-on-the-spot weapons platform to take out the satellite assets of an enemy de jour, or as a launch vehicle that can deliver bombs, missiles or kinetic weapons anywhere on earth in less than two hours; what Air Force wags refer to as “operationally responsive space.”

Prior to launch, Air Force Deputy Undersecretary of Space Programs, Gary Payton, ridiculed speculation that the X-37B is the prototype for a new space-based weapons system. Payton told reporters, “I don’t know how this could be called a weaponization of space. Fundamentally, it’s just an updated version of the space shuttle kinds of activities in space.”

Needless to say, such denials should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

The highly-classified program has a checkered history. According to GlobalSecurity.org, the project is envisaged as a “reusable space architecture” that would provide “aircraft-like operability, flexibility, and responsiveness, supporting AF Space Command mission areas.”

While early examples such as the Dyna-Soar/X-20 program of the 1950s-1960s never panned out due to technological constraints, the Air Force never stopped trying. Programs such as the X-40 Space Maneuver Vehicle (SMV) and the X-41 Common Air Vehicle (CAV), a hypersonic craft intended to serve as a key component in developing the off-again, on-again “Prompt Global Strike” project, demonstrate continuing Air Force interest in “high frontier” weapons programs.

The X-40 project eventually merged with the Air Force’s X-37B program and the X-41 CAV program has been absorbed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2).

Last month, the first test of the Falcon (apparently) ended in failure when DARPA researchers claimed they had lost contact with the craft moments after take-off from Vandenberg Air Force Base. The Falcon was supposed to demonstrate the feasibility of launching a vehicle to the edge of space and then have it come “screaming back into the atmosphere, maneuvering at twenty times the speed of sound before landing north of the Kwajalein Atoll, 30 minutes later and 4100 nautical miles away,” according to Wired.

Did the HTV-2 mission fail? Since misdirection and disinformation have long been staples of Pentagon black world projects, most likely we’ll never know one way or the other.

Inevitably, even if these projects amount to no more than monumental failures, their intended target audience, China, Russia or any other nation viewed as a “rogue state” by the imperialist hyperpower, in all likelihood would be drawn in to an expensive, and deadly, contest to devise countermeasures.

In this light, Space.com reporter Jeremy Hsu wrote May 5, that ambiguities in devising militarized space technology “can make it tricky for nations to gauge the purpose or intentions behind new prototypes.” And such uncertainties are precisely the fodder that fuel an arms race.

According to GlobalSecurity.org’s John Pike, the U.S. military “could even be using the cloak of mystery to deliberately bamboozle and confuse rival militaries.” Pike told Space.com that “the X-37B and HTV-2 projects could represent the tip of a space weapons program hidden within the Pentagon’s secret ‘black budget,’ or they might be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.”

Pike said that current work “leaves plenty of room for misinterpretation or even outright deception, which could be a ploy to distract other nations with military space projects.”

“‘One of them could be a deception program and the other could be the spitting image of the real thing,’ Pike noted. He said that such misdirection could force other nations’ militaries to waste money chasing down dead ends.”

While Pike’s assertions sound plausible, given the Pentagon’s track record and an annual $50 billion black budget directed towards research on new weapons and surveillance systems, the X-37B, the Falcon HTV-2 or other systems on the drawing board would certainly be useful assets if the military chose to deploy them as offensive weapons.

A Space Bomber?

Less ambitious perhaps, but potentially more destabilizing than unproven hypersonic technology, the X-37B was originally designed by Boeing for NASA in 1999 as an emergency escape vehicle for the International Space Station.

The civilian agency once viewed the craft as a potential lifeboat that could rescue stranded astronauts from the ISS. However, with Russia’s Soyuz space capsule doing yeoman’s work for just such a contingency, NASA no longer saw the need for an expensive winged re-entry vehicle and dropped the program.

But, as with all things having to do with the Military-Industrial Complex’s insatiable appetite for new weapons, DARPA, the Pentagon’s “blue sky” geek shop, picked up the slack in 2004 when NASA headed towards the exit.

After further testing and design enhancements by DARPA, the project was handed off to the Air Force in 2006. The program is now run by the USAF’s secretive Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) and spokespeople there have been tight lipped, refusing to say how much the vehicle costs; a sure sign that funds for the robot shuttle come from the black side of the budget where new weapons systems spawn and metastasize.

A tip-off to the covert nature–and militaristic intentions–of the program, comes from the office running the show. According to an Air Force Fact Sheet, the RCO “responds to Combat Air Force and combatant command requirements” and “expedites development and fielding of select Department of Defense combat support and weapon systems by leveraging defense-wide technology development efforts and existing operational capabilities.”

According to investigative journalist Sharon Weinberger, the author of Imaginary Weapons and A Nuclear Family Vacation, her recent piece in Popular Mechanics, revealed that prior to the Pentagon assuming ownership of the X-37 project, “the spacecraft was regarded as just another experimental prototype.” Today however, Weinberger wrote, “Air Force officials are skittish to mention even the smallest details.”

When Air Force chief scientist Werner J.A. Dahm was asked by Weinberger “what he could say about the X-37B,” he replied, “‘Nothing very useful,’ before quickly changing the subject.”

In a 2006 piece in Air Force Print News (AFPN) however, we were informed that the X-37B will “will serve as a test platform for satellites and other space technologies. The vehicle allows satellite sensors, subsystems, components and associated technology to be transported into the environment where they will be used–space.”

With information scarce on what the OTV’s current mission is, the Air Force has said that after the first few flights (a second test in slated for 2011), “you get into the realm of using it as a reusable space test platform–putting space components into its experimental bay and taking them to space for testing,” RCO’s X-37B program manager Lt. Col. Kevin Walker told AFPN.

While the Air Force has denied that the X-37B is the vanguard for a space-based system to be deployed for spying or as an orbital weapons’ delivery platform, and while this may betechnically accurate in so far as the mini-shuttle is a prototype, the vagaries of the project raise intriguing questions.

This is borne out by an April 22 announcement by the 45th Space Wing Public Affairs office at Patrick Air Force base. Deputy Undersecretary Payton said “if these technologies on the vehicle prove to be as good as we estimate, it will make our access to space more responsive, perhaps cheaper, and push us in the vector toward being able to react to warfighter needs more quickly.”

This was seconded by Col. André Lovett, 45th Space Wing vice commander: “This launch helps ensure that our warfighters will be provided the capabilities they need in the future.”

Nothing ambiguous in these statements as to how the USAF views the future role for the system, nor do they bear a relationship to Payton’s earlier claim to reporters that the X-37B is “just an updated version of the space shuttle kinds of activities in space.”

Weinberger notes that “the most daring job of a space plane, and the one least discussed, is the role of a bomber.” According to Weinberger, the X-37B “could fly over targets within an hour of launch to release cone-shaped re-entry vehicles that would both protect and guide weapons through the atmosphere.” Equally destabilizing, a craft such as the X-37B “could carry 1000- or 2000-pound re-entry vehicles armed with precision munitions like bunker-busting penetrators or small-diameter bombs, or simply use the explosive impact of kinetic rods cratering at hypersonic speeds to destroy targets.”

Joan Johnson-Freese, a Professor of National Security Studies at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, told Space.com journalist Leonard David last month that “other countries” will likely view the X-37B “as another capability intended to assure the United States will be able to dominate access to and the use of space.”

William Scott, coauthor of the militaristic novel Counterspace: The Next Hours of World War III, told David that a reusable space plane “could deliver small satellites having specific, limited roles to bridge critical capabilities gaps.”

The former bureau chief for Aviation Week & Space Technology told David that amongst the most vital characteristics for fielding a weapons’ platform such as the X-37B is surprise: “On the first orbit, a space plane could capture data, before the ‘target’ knew it was coming.” Since a space plane could be “launched into any orbit, at any inclination, providing prompt ‘eyes-on’ of virtually any area of the world,” unlike a satellite with known, predictable trajectories, it could also be used as a surveillance platform or even as a means to surreptitiously “kidnap” or disable an adversary’s satellite.

Seconding Weinberger’s assessment, Scott told Space.com that “ultimately, weapons could be delivered from a space plane in low Earth orbit.” As noted above, these could come in the form of “precision” munitions or insane hypervelocity rod bundles, so called “Rods from God,” tungsten projectiles lobbed from space at 36,000 feet per second that can “hit a cross-haired target on the ground.”

“I did a story about the rods concept in 1994 or 1995, based on concepts being discussed in the U.S. Air Force at the time,” Scott said. “Fifteen years later, maybe they’re ready for testing.”

This view is shared by Everett Dolman, a professor of Comparative Military Studies at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at the Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama.

“Regardless of its original intent, Dolman told Space.com, “the most obvious and formidable is in service as a space fighter–a remotely piloted craft capable of disabling multiple satellites in orbit on a single mission and staying on orbit for months to engage newly orbited platforms.” A project such as the X-37B, more advanced systems still on the drawing-board or in development in any number of Air Force black sites such as Groom Lake (Area 51) “would be a tremendous tactical advantage,” Dolman said.

Even were the system not to be transformed into a space bomber, Dolman theorized that the X-37B could be maneuvered close to an adversary’s satellite and capture details in the form of signals intelligence. “With the anticipated increase in networked-microsatellites in the next few years, such a platform might be the best–and only–means of collecting technical intelligence in space.”

While the system may evolve into a destabilizing new weapon, Dolman said that “all of the information leaked about the X-37B suggests its primary function will be as a test platform, but a test platform for what?”

Regardless of how the X-37B prototype pans out, we can be certain that as the U.S. imperialist empire continues its long trek on the road towards failed statehood, the Pentagon, always eager to expend the blood and treasure of the American people on endless wars of conquest, will continue to build new and ever-more destabilizing weapons.