\nSalon.com<\/span><\/p>\n
![\"Lawrence](\"http:\/\/seeker401.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/03\/lawrence_wilkerson.jpg?w=497&h=330\")
<\/a>Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.<\/strong><\/div>\nCol. Lawrence Wilkerson is tired of \u201cthe corporate interests that we go abroad to slay monsters for.\u201d<\/p>\n
As the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Wilkerson played an important role in the George W. Bush administration. In the years since, however, the former Bush official has established himself as a prominent critic of U.S. foreign policy.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think Smedley Butler was onto something,\u201d explained Lawrence Wilkerson, in an extended interview with Salon.<\/p>\n
In his day, in the early 20th century, Butler was the highest ranked and most honored official in the history of the U.S. Marine Corps. He helped lead wars throughout the world over a series of decades, before later becoming a vociferous opponent of American imperialism, declaring \u201cwar is a racket<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Wilkerson spoke highly of Butler, referencing the late general\u2019s famous quote<\/a>: \u201cLooking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI think the problem that Smedley identified, quite eloquently actually,\u201d Wilkerson said, \u201cespecially for a Marine \u2014 I had to say that as a soldier,\u201d the retired Army colonel added with a laugh; \u201cI think the problem is much deeper and more profound today, and much more subtle and sophisticated.\u201d<\/p>\n Today, the military-industrial complex \u201cis much more pernicious than Eisenhower ever thought it would be,\u201d Wilkerson warned.<\/p>\n In his farewell address<\/a> in 1961, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously cautioned Americans that the military and corporate interests were increasingly working together, contrary to the best interests of the citizenry. He called this phenomenon the military-industrial complex.<\/p>\n As a case study of how the contemporary military-industrial complex works, Wilkerson pointed to leading weapons corporations like Lockheed Martin, and their work with draconian, repressive Western-allied regimes in the Gulf, or in inflaming tensions in Korea.<\/p>\n \u201cWas Bill Clinton\u2019s expansion of NATO \u2014 after George H. W. Bush and [his Secretary of State] James Baker had assured Gorbachev and then Yeltsin that we wouldn\u2019t go an inch further east \u2014 was this for Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, and Boeing, and others, to increase their network of potential weapon sales?\u201d Wilkerson asked.<\/p>\n \u201cYou bet it was,\u201d he answered.<\/p>\n \u201cIs there a penchant on behalf of the Congress to bless the use of force more often than not because of the constituencies they have and the money they get from the defense contractors?\u201d Wilkerson continued.<\/p>\n Again, he answered his own question: \u201cYou bet.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not like Dick Cheney or someone like that went and said let\u2019s have a war because we want to make money for Halliburton, but it is a pernicious on decision-making,\u201d the former Bush official explained. \u201cAnd the fact that they donate so much money to congressional elections and to PACs and so forth is another pernicious influence.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThose who deny this are just being utterly naive, or they are complicit too,\u201d Wilkerson added.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd some of my best friends work for Lockheed Martin,\u201d along with Raytheon, Boeing and Halliburton, he quipped.<\/p>\n Wilkerson \u2014 who in the same interview with Salon defended Edward Snowden<\/a>, saying the whistle-blower performed an important service and did not endanger U.S. national security \u2014 was also intensely critical of the growing movement to \u201cprivatize public functions, like prisons.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI fault us Republicans for this majorly,\u201d he confessed \u2014 although a good many prominent Democrats have also jumped on the neoliberal bandwagon. In a 2011 speech, for instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared<\/a>, \u201cIt\u2019s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity\u201d for U.S. corporations.<\/p>\n Wilkerson lamented, \u201cWe\u2019ve privatized the ultimate public function: war.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIn many respects it is now private interests that benefit most from our use of military force,\u201d he continued. \u201cWhether it\u2019s private security contractors, that are still all over Iraq or Afghanistan, or it\u2019s the bigger-known defense contractors, like the number one in the world, Lockheed Martin.\u201d<\/p>\n Journalist Antony Loewenstein detailed how the U.S. privatized its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in another interview with Salon<\/a>. There are an estimated 30,000 military contractors<\/a> working for the Pentagon in Afghanistan today; they outnumber<\/a> U.S. troops three-to-one. Thousands more are in Iraq.<\/p>\n Lockheed Martin simply \u201cplans to sell every aspect of missile defense that it can,\u201d regardless of whether it is needed, Wilkerson said. And what is best to maximize corporate interest is by no means necessarily the same as what is best for average citizens.<\/p>\n \u201cWe dwarf the Russians or anyone else who sells weapons in the world,\u201d the retired Army colonel continued.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are the death merchant of the world.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014-<\/p>\n he said it..not me..<\/p>\n \u201cIs there a penchant on behalf of the Congress to bless the use of force more often than not because of the constituencies they have and the money they get from the defense contractors?\u201d Wilkerson continued.Again, he answered his own question: \u201cYou bet.\u201d<\/p>\n war is a business..and its good for..some businesses..<\/p>\n \u201cWilkerson lamented, \u201cWe\u2019ve privatized the ultimate public function: war.\u201d<\/p>\n #truth<\/p>\n \u201cIn many respects it is now private interests that benefit most from our use of military force,\u201d<\/p>\n