On Memorial Day, politicians will speak at ceremonies all over the country and repeat their favorite mantra: “Support the troops.”

This pledge is hammered into the American psyche at every turn. But there’s a hidden, dark history that shows that the politicians are in fact no friend to service members–but their greatest enemy.

An easy way to prove this is to look at how they so quickly betray and abandon their soldiers after purposely ruining their lives, and even after using them as literal lab rats. 

In this disturbing chapter of The Empire Files, Abby Martin documents decades of experimentation on unwitting US troops—from nuclear tests to psychotropic drugs—as well as knowingly exposing them to deadly poisons, from Agent Orange to sarin gas.

Most infuriating is that the hundreds of thousands of veterans seeking help from the government for the side-effects of these tests are always met with lies and denial. Be prepared to be armed with info and pissed off about how veterans are really treated in the US Empire.

Used & Betrayed: 100 Years of US Troops as Lab Rats

***

FOLLOW // @EmpireFiles & @AbbyMartin

WATCH // YouTube.com/EmpireFiles

The United States has long been able to disguise occupation of foreign territories, and the pillaging of their resources, under the pretense of humanitarianism, all while at the same time bolstering horrifically abusive and repressive regimes in the regions it occupies. The establishment media has been able to camouflage colonial rhetoric by creating a more subdued, less threatening narrative so as to hide the true nature of warfare and to in turn fabricate a history that erases the Empire’s victims.

As much of the world moves forward in providing social benefits, including health care benefits and expanding education programs, while in turn making cuts to military budgets, the United States spends nearly $600 billion annually on its defense budget. Uncovering the hidden costs, military expenditures make up over 50% of American tax dollars. By institutionalizing the collusion between government and big business a permanent war economy in indisputably maintained, and lobbying for war becomes a necessity for those wishing to turn a quick profit. 

Watch Abby Martin’s inaugural Empire Files episode, where she goes deep inside the rise of history’s largest, ever expanding Empire.

The Rise of History’s Biggest Empire

**

FOLLOW // @EmpireFiles and @AbbyMartin

WATCH // YouTube.com/EmpireFiles

The most dangerous man alive killed all the Jews who died during the holocaust. He was the one who killed all the innocent civilians on both sides of World War II and all other wars. He dropped The Bomb on Hiroshima and he flew aircraft into the World Trade Centers. This man is known as The Troop.

The Troop kills.  The Troop is not necessarily strong or intelligent, although he can be both.  The Troop has no conscience, or if he does have one, he does not use it. The Troop believes.  Facts that contradict The Troop’s beliefs are considered false by definition.  The Troop has a weakness for sociopathic monsters. The Troop follows orders and has never heard an order he will not try to obey.  The Troop dominates, and uses force to ensure that others cannot do as they please.  The Troop works for money.  The Troop finds what he does to be glorious.

The Troop is self-replicating.  His actions lead to the creation of other Troops. The Troop obeys the laws of physics. For every Troop there is an equal and opposite Troop.  In spite of his penchant for violence, The Troop needs lots of support. He is particularly bolstered by unconditional praise and small tokens of gratitude from anyone, including people who do not know him or anything specifically he has done.  The Troop is parasitic. He lives off the sweat of taxpayers.

On some possible future night, when there is a knock on your door and a man in a uniform holds a gun to your head and demands your computer, that man will be a Troop.  If someone destroys your home with a bulldozer, or your village with artillery and missiles, that someone will be a Troop.  When people die in a drone strike in a far away land, a Troop pulled the trigger.  When prisoners are tortured, a Troop attached the electrodes to the testicles and flipped the switch. When your freedom is gone, The Troop will be the enforcer. If you are killed for resisting, The Troop will be the killer.

Like Zombies, Troops start out as normal people.  But Troops are real-life.  As horrible as it may seem, your son or daughter, or your best friend might become a Troop.  To prevent this from happening, it is best to get to Troops while they are still normal people.   That is when they are most open to reason.  One must be vigilant. Almost any normal person between the ages of 18 and 35 can become a Troop. The initial warning signs can start much earlier.

To be successful in stopping Troops, it is important to know what things can cause a normal person to become a Troop.  Sociopathic monsters, who are often found in high governmental positions, need Troops to be their henchmen. For this reason, they use the resources of government to attempt to turn normal people into Troops.  Government advertising makes becoming a Troop sound lucrative and adventurous and glorious. The government will claim to provide valuable training to normal people that become Troops, and also claim that becoming a Troop will give one discipline and direction.

Let your loved one know that the government propaganda they hear is, after all, produced by sociopathic monsters.  Given them real-life examples such as, Waco, Texas or Tiananmen Square, or the occupied West Bank to prove your point.   Point out the remarkably small percentage of high ranking politician’s children who are Troops.

A person who is looking for glory or adventure is at risk of becoming a Troop.  If your child or friend is looking for glory or adventure, talk to them. Let them know that it is not glorious to be a henchman for a sociopathic monster. Offer to go on a camping trip to an underdeveloped country with them.   Get flying or sailing lessons for them.  Explain to them that these things can be done without the need for killing other people.

If your loved one needs discipline or direction, show them how to polish their shoes.  Have them do some pushups.  Have them sleep on a cot.  Show them that one does not have to join the armed forces to do these things, and that with a little imagination; they might get discipline and direction by doing something entirely different like attending college or learning a trade.

Your loved one might be looking for camaraderie.  Don’t be afraid to show them the love you have for them. Do things together.  Demonstrate how fulfilling it is to spend time with one’s family and friends.  Remind them that you love them and want them to remain close to you and safe, and not in some faraway place killing or getting killed.

Money is probably the most common reason a normal person becomes a Troop.  A man has to survive and provide for his or her family by whatever means is necessary.  This is where the government, with its virtually unlimited financial resources, has leverage.  Talk to your loved one about self-respect and self-reliance.  Assure them that as friends or family you will stick together and ensure each other’s well-being.  Explain to them that someone with the motivation and the willingness to sacrifice that they have demonstrated will find a way to provide for themselves and their family, and that they won’t have to sacrifice their morals or self-respect to do it.

The task is not easy, but working together, the people of our world can cure Troopism in our lifetime.  With love and perseverance we can prevail.  As the number of Troops worldwide decreases, so will the incidence and extent of war.  Sociopathic monsters will still exist, but they will be impotent and easily managed by traditional law enforcement.  Ultimately, a world without troops would truly be a world without war.  In that glorious day, together we will have stopped the most dangerous man in the world.

Written by David Wiggins

Flickr user US Army

Fortunately, the men’s lives are spared. For this isn’t Obama’s world; it’s the people’s world, and the satellite relays geographical information to Pakistan’s Ministry of Interior regarding the level of the Mianwali River. Thousands of Pakistanis within the Mianwali flood zone are evacuated thanks to USA’s advanced, humanitarian satellite technology.

This is our world. A world in which the U.S. Department of Health is allocated a baseline budget of $525 billion, not including supplemental allocations from Congress, additional $89 billion in Overseas Environmental Operations or $53 billion in EI (Environmental Intelligence) funding.

Curiously, since USA’s attitude adjustment – which took place around late-2013 – bellicose rhetoric against U.S. foreign policy has subsided considerably. After all, the political grievances that induce political violence are quickly becoming obsolete.

Wars of aggression are over. All U.S. military forces and mercenaries are gone from Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, Djibouti, and dozens of other sovereign countries. U.S. special operations forces no longer operate in over a hundred distinct nations (p. 7). With U.S. war profiteers losing revenue, innocents around the world are no longer killed at astonishing rates – two trends that are inextricably linked.

Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and across AFRICOM have ceased. Teenagers and the elderly may now walk the streets without fear of incineration. The Pentagon has closed all but three overseas installations. The remaining three – in Okinawa, Rota, and Menwith Hill – are in the process of being handed over entirely to their respective host nations. Imperial wars for profit are on the decline.

With U.S. military assets no longer based on the Arabian Peninsula, extremists have lost another justifiable political grievance against U.S. foreign policy. Since the U.S. government stopped supporting oppressive or undemocratic regimes – like Bahrain, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia – the people have breathed a sigh of relief; their oppressors are unable to maintain power through violence, ever since U.S. diplomatic aid and FMF dried up.

Israel stopped colonizing Palestinian land many moons ago because USA’s annual $3.3 billion gift to the IOF is now allocated to environmental remediation in and around the Jordan and Litani Rivers. AIPAC’s fortress in Washington, D.C. has been abandoned. The Right of Return is in effect, as millions of Palestinians migrate peacefully across demilitarized borders. Zionism’s racist apartheid state has collapsed; one state for all exists from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Jordan River.

The Big Four grievances – wars of aggression, military assets in Saudi Arabia, support for dictators, and USA’s unconditional support for Zionism – have crumbled. Every year, the FBI still tries to entrap dozens of people whose only discrepancy has been committing thoughtcrime. Fortunately, USA’s wise citizenry, who are empowered by a robust independent media, do not allow the Department of Justice to prosecute them.

Christian Sorensen for Media Roots

MEDIA ROOTS — Suzanne Maloney is a mainstay within élite U.S. foreign policy circles.  A former employee of ExxonMobil and the U.S. State Department, Maloney now works for the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy.  She recently presented testimony to the United States Congress entitled Progress of the Obama Administration’s Policy toward Iran.  The Saban Center later provided an Arabic translation of her testimony on their website.  Maloney’s testimony and its Arabic translation afford valuable insight into the ideology, which directs U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Ideology and the Saban Center 

Haim Saban, who holds dual citizenship between the USA and Israel, founded the Saban Center in 2002 with a multi-million dollar donation.  By his own admission, Saban boasts, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”  Saban, who has a personal net worth of roughly $3 billion, was also the second biggest private donor to U.S. Presidential and Congressional candidates.  He describes his formula for influencing U.S. politics thusly:  “make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.”  According to The New Yorker, “he is most proud of his role as political power broker.  His greatest concern,” he says, “is to protect Israel by strengthening the United States-Israel relationship.”  In line with Saban’s words, the Saban Center attracts those who adhere to a rigid brand of Zionist ideology.  

Ideology is a constellation of ideas, which form the basis of a group’s political theory and actions.  Zionism is a political ideology, which supported the establishment of an occupying Jewish state in the historical land of Palestine.  Today, Zionism is dedicated to furthering Israel’s nationalist aspirations.  The most widespread form of Zionism in the U.S. foreign policy arena is Revisionist Zionism, which romanticizes Jewish nationalism, emphasizes a perceived necessity of military force against any Arab or Persian ‘threat,’ and condones Israel’s territorial expansion and aggression.  Adhering to this Zionist ideology, the Saban Center has employed Visiting Fellows whose ranks include numerous former IDF employees, the former head of Shin Bet, and a sprinkling of Arab nationals who turned their backs on the Palestinians and sought the prestige inanely associated with D.C. think tanks.  In this context, the Saban Center doesn’t just publish texts periodically, but rather is a constituent to extensive dynamics, which prescribe Revisionist Zionist policy and advance it throughout the U.S. foreign policy lobbying apparatus.

Maloney’s testimony highlights the fact that, although the majority of U.S. think tanks are diffused across the Democrat-Republican two-party system, even the most respected think tank doesn’t deviate from the Revisionist Zionist narrative with respect to U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East.  Maloney testified in the autumn of 2011 during a time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was mobilizing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its propaganda apparatuses in Washington, D.C. to inflate the Iranian ‘threat.’  Netanyahu is no fool.  He targets Iran, which is Israel’s lone regional rival, because Iran supports groups, which resist Israeli aggression.  Maloney testifies within that context.  She critiques President Obama on behalf of the Saban Center, as part of the political ebb and flow, which ensures all Washington actors adhere to the precepts of Revisionist Zionism.

Numerous U.S. think tanks perpetuate Revisionist Zionist ideology with even greater aggression than others.  The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Center for Security Policy, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute are the most prominent.  However, it is crucial to focus on the Saban Center for Middle East Policy precisely because it is not often considered a Zionist enterprise, unlike these other think tanks.  This low visibility allows the Saban Center to propagate a subtler, smoother mode of Revisionist Zionism throughout the U.S. foreign policy lobbying apparatus.  With deliberate concealment, the Saban Center professes to provide “Washington policymakers with balanced, objective, in-depth and timely research and policy analysis from experienced and knowledgeable scholars,” while claiming that its “central objective is to advance understanding of developments in the Middle East through policy-relevant scholarship and debate.”  This prevarication is even more dangerous when one considers its influential status as the 2011 “Top Think Tank in the World.”

The Saban Center’s subtle use of Revisionist Zionism is exemplified in the salient fact Maloney’s testimony doesn’t reference Israel once.  This intentional silence speaks volumes.  Omissions of Israel, its regional hegemony, or the USA’s history of interference in Iran’s internal affairs, are all part of a deliberate effort to de-historicize Iran and flush away any useful socioeconomic perspective.  Other relevant facts—Israel possesses nuclear weapons and didn’t sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), while Iran has no nuclear weapons and has signed the NPT—are simply not allowed to penetrate the prevailing narrative.

Mark Dubowitz and Dr. Kenneth Pollack accompanied Maloney in testifying to Congress.  Mark Dubowitz is Executive Director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.  That think tank describes itself as a “non-partisan policy institute” dedicated to “defending free nations against their enemies,” specifically against the “threat facing America, Israel, and the West.”  Kenneth Pollack is Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.  In 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice alleged Pollack aided two AIPAC employees while they were under investigation on allegations of spying for the state of Israel.  After immense political pressure, all charges were eventually dropped.  These three, the only panel members to testify before that Congressional Subcommittee, were selected deliberately to provide policymakers with the narrowest possible viewpoints of the Iranian ‘threat‘ through the lens of Revisionist Zionism.

Ideology via Translation

Revisionist Zionism is present within Maloney’s original English language testimony and also underpins the Saban Center’s translation of this document into the Arabic.  (The Saban Center does not credit any individual(s) for translating Maloney’s text into Arabic).  Aside from examples to be discussed momentarily, the Arabic translation is outstanding and remains completely loyal to Maloney’s English text.  This faithful, direct translation is itself a strategy, stemming from the deliberate collocation of an ideology with persuasive, incisive writing (Lefevere: 51).  

When reading the Arabic translation in comparison to the English text, it is evident that the Saban Center’s translator spent a great deal of time selecting the appropriate words to convey Maloney’s challenging, academic vocabulary.  Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that any deviation from Maloney’s source text is entirely deliberate and may have ideological motives. As the Persian language, Farsi, is the national Iranian language, any changes, which took place during translation from the English into the Arabic, imply a sense U.S. power is omnipotent and unavoidable.  These changes can foment dissent among Arab populations who read that text, and provide an Iranian minority, which is literate in the Arabic, with a sense of ascending capability to confront the Iranian theocracy.

Although the Arabic languge translation of Maloney’s testimony is a direct, accurate, and faithful translation, the instances where the translator deviates from said fidelity are fantastic discussion points. These deviations are also valuable precisely because they’re rare and offer tremendous insight into the nature of Revisionist Zionism and the broader aims of Maloney’s text. For example, Maloney’s English testimony stated, “Iran has experienced very little of the upheaval that has beset its neighbors over the course of the past year.”  However, the translator opted for a stronger word in Arabic, which means “to storm through, to blow through, or to shake thoroughly.”  The Arabic translation reads:  “Iran had witnessed very little of the protests that stormed through its neighboring countries over the past year.”  Later on, the English language testimony states Iran’s “neighborhood has been engulfed in historic change,” while the translation expresses how “the historic change stormed through/blew through Iran’s neighboring countries.”  The Saban Center translated these passages in this manner in order to address the Arab audience, and emphasize Middle Easterners’ agency and ability to affect change in their region.  Perhaps the translator is also targeting the slice of Iranian Persians who can read Arabic or the many Arabs who fled to Iran after USA’s 2003 invasion of Iraq.  The translator deliberately selects words, which emphasize how populations in the Greater Middle East can positively affect their environments; the audience can engage in protests, which storm through regions, not passive, nameless upheaval, which besets regions.

The Saban Center often interfered with the Arabic language text during translation.  In multiple instances, the translator selected two different Arabic words to translate the English language word for “liabilities.”  The first context speaks of “the regime’s internal political liabilities,” which I would have translated as “political responsibilities.”  The second context broaches how “the regional environment has also created new liabilities for Tehran,” which I would have translated as “obligations.”  By telling the Arabic audience responsibilities are actually liabilities and obligations, the Saban Center advises the populace has a right to be upset if any regime reneges on its obligations.  This can be extrapolated to other regional, oppressive regimes.  This is a deliberate, indirect message to the Middle East, fitting perfectly with an Israeli propaganda apparatus, which prides itself on sewing strife within Arab and Persian lands.

Maloney’s testimony affirms “sanctions and export controls have played a subtle but significant role in slowing Iran’s capability to acquire” nuclear technology.  The Saban Center deliberately didn’t translate the word “subtle” into the Arabic, despite the fact that the Arabic language contains multiple words with which to convey subtlety well.  The Saban translator instead selects a word, which means “covert” or “hidden.”  This Arabic word meshes well with the U.S.-Israeli clandestine subversion of Iran’s sovereignty.  A covert program, supported by two hegemonic powers, is unlikely to be stopped; it can’t even be pinpointed.  Those who read the Arabic translation of Maloney’s testimony may retain a feeling of inevitability the hegemons will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear technology and the reader must go along with such a foregone conclusion.

Maloney contends “Iran’s dogmatic theocrats perceive the Arab uprisings in triumphal terms.”  The Saban Center translates this into the Arabic as:  “Iran’s dogmatic zealots perceive the Arab uprisings in triumphal terms.”  There is no mention of a theocracy.  In theocracy’s stead, the Saban Center refers to dogmatic “zealots” or “hardliners.”  Zealotry, synonymous with fanaticism and intolerance of opposing views, is an amplification of mere theocracy.  Theocracy, by definition and Iranian tradition, is a system of government in which clerics lead the nation.  In practice, the Saban Center actualizes a cognitive distinction in the reader of its Arabic language text.  The Arabic reader, having no knowledge of the tamer wording in Maloney’s original testimony, understands the Iranian rulers as fanatics, not mere theocrats.

The Saban Center’s mutation of theocrat into zealot also confines the Persian Other within Western stereotypes.  “By employing certain modes of representing the other… translation reinforces hegemonic versions of the [neo]-colonized” (Niranjana: 3) and emphasizes damaging stereotypes.  The readers are fully cognizant of this distortion of identity, but are helpless to alter the source of these representations, located distally in Washington, D.C., where these images serve as a mobilizing force.

Early in her testimony, Maloney asserts the Iranian regime’s durability is “the product of a resourceful campaign” to hamper popular uprisings.  Notably, the Arabic translation of Maloney’s testimony indicates the regime’s durability results from a “sly” or “insidious” campaign to suppress dissent.  By portraying the Persian with great negativity, the reader of Maloney’s translated testimony is imbibed with a sense of antipathy towards the Other.  Perhaps this revulsion will contribute to existing Persian-Arab tensions around the Persian Gulf, or perhaps this revulsion will be internalized within the Arab or Iranian readership.  No matter its effect, portraying the Persian with great negativity benefits practitioners of Revisionist Zionism.

Near the end of her English language testimony, Maloney remarks “the impediments to American sanctions represent tactical challenges,” which the Saban Center translated as representing “large” or “considerable” challenges.  The Saban Center’s omission was deliberate, since the word “tactical” exists in Arabic and is used frequently.  Tactical challenges are related to military manoeuvres in support of immediate martial gain and are designed to contribute to strategic objectives.  By omitting any mention of the tactical nature of the challenges posed by U.S. sanctions, the Saban Center avoids military correlations and any concept Iran might possibly achieve military advantage.  Furthermore, by translating the utterance “tactical” into the adjective “large,” the Saban Center places an amorphic, conceptual obstacle of indeterminate volume in Iran’s path.  Once again, the Saban Center employs slight translation techniques to dramatically affect the Arabic reader’s perception.  The message to the Middle East is clear: Revisionist Zionism, and those who support it, whether willingly or otherwise, will win.

In addition to manipulating individual words, the Saban Center adds Arabic words during translation.  Maloney’s testimony asserts “disturbing new allegations [surround] Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons technology and its involvement with terrorism.”  The Saban Center’s Arabic translation deliberately adds to Maloney’s initial assertion through contending allegations exist about “Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons technology and its involvement in acts of terrorism.”  The insinuation is profound to the Arabic reader.  In diplomatic terms, general involvement with terrorism pales in comparison to direct complicity in acts of terrorism.  The Saban Center’s ideological additions frame Iran as an exporter of global terrorism and implicate it in finite acts of the worst kind, a contention Maloney’s counterparts at the Subcommittee hearing were eager to emphasize.

A similar narrative arises in Maloney’s testimony when she remarks “the resistance and persistence of the Islamic Republic presents a greater concern within the region than at any time in the past two decades.”  The Saban Center translates this seemingly bland introduction as: “the Islamic Republic’s resistance and persistence is a source of great worry within the region, more so than at any point in the past two decades.”  This addition incriminates Iran as the paramount source, insinuating boldly all fear will evaporate once Iran is dealt with. Interference through addition is a clever, measured action, calculated specifically to frame the Iranian regime in a negative light.

As expected, there are many instances where English language utterances do not exist in Arabic.  These cases provide the Saban Center translator with free range to convey the precise meaning of the English word by using whatever Arabic words the translator sees fit.  When discussing USA’s position relative to Iran, Maloney asserts “the threat of new measures has persuaded Tehran to take a number of steps over the years to mitigate its vulnerability to external economic leverage.”  That statement alone, like much of Maloney’s testimony, is loaded with ideological prejudices.  Despite all, the Saban Center chose to insert greater ideological force in the Arabic translation.  Since a single, complete, apropos utterance for “leverage” doesn’t exist in Arabic, the Saban Center could have conveyed its essence through multiple words or various other translation techniques.  Instead, it selects one word, whose meaning conveys influence, effectiveness, and even prestige.  None of these descriptions satisfy leverage’s definition, which conveys an exertion of force designed to achieve a particular outcome.  By deliberately avoiding explaining this in the Arabic, the Saban Center instead drops any connotation the U.S. achieves its goals through the application of force and implies the U.S. is enigmatically influential.  In sum, the Saban Center doesn’t attempt to explain the concept of “leverage” in Arabic, because that doesn’t suit its ideological goals; implications of the inexplicable influence of non-native entities aligns well with the ideology of Revisionist Zionism.

The heart of Zionism explains why the Saban Center would omit words during translation.  Zionism, by definition, is based on exclusion, both territorially and conceptually.  It emphasizes a state-building process, which rejects Palestinians, prioritizes land allotment for a chosen people, and deliberately propagates ethnic division (Gordon: 821).  By its very nature, Zionism demands the expulsion of aspects, which might disrupt its traditionally cohesive character (Ibid: 811).  Hence, ideology tends to trump linguistic considerations during the translation process (Lefevere: 39).

Caution is mandatory because some translators might not be conscious of how the Saban Center’s ideology affects their work.  Hence, deliberate intent might not be applicable to all instances where the Saban Center distorts Maloney’s text during translation into the Arabic.  Concordantly, critics of the Saban Center’s perpetuation of Revisionist Zionism must accept not all ideological acts are premeditated.  Nonetheless, dissecting Dr. Suzanne Maloney’s testimony and its Arabic translation illuminates how a subtle U.S. think tank adheres to a strict Zionist narrative when prescribing policy about the Greater Middle East.  This analysis is a small step towards understanding how the ideological undercurrents of a refined think tank intersect with the U.S. geopolitical process.

Written by Christian Sorensen for Media Roots

***

Photo by Flickr user Ron Almog

Additional labour by Messina