Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TheNutcracker

(2,104 posts)
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 11:49 AM Sep 2014

Who's Paying the Pro-War Pundits? - The Nation

http://m.thenation.com/article/181601-whos-paying-pro-war-pundits

Lee Fang on September 12, 2014 - 3:40PM ET

If you read enough news and watch enough cable television about the threat of the Islamic State, the radical Sunni Muslim militia group better known simply as ISIS, you will inevitably encounter a parade of retired generals demanding an increased US military presence in the region. They will say that our government should deploy, as retired General Anthony Zinni demanded, up to 10,000 American boots on the ground to battle ISIS. Or as in retired General Jack Keane's case, they will make more vague demands, such as for "offensive" air strikes and the deployment of more military advisers to the region.

But what you won't learn from media coverage of ISIS is that many of these former Pentagon officials have skin in the game as paid directors and advisers to some of the largest military contractors in the world. Ramping up America's military presence in Iraq and directly entering the war in Syria, along with greater military spending more broadly, is a debatable solution to a complex political and sectarian conflict. But those goals do unquestionably benefit one player in this saga: America's defense industry.

Keane is a great example of this phenomenon. His think tank, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which he oversees along with neoconservative partisans Liz Cheney and William Kristol, has provided the data on ISIS used for multiple stories by The New York Times, the BBC and other leading outlets.

Keane has appeared on Fox News at least nine times over the last two months to promote the idea that the best way to stop ISIS is through military action—in particular, through air strikes deep into ISIS-held territory. In one of the only congressional hearings about ISIS over the summer, Keane was there to testify and call for more American military engagement. On Wednesday evening, Keane declared President Obama's speech on defeating ISIS insufficient, arguing that a bolder strategy is necessary. "I truly believe we need to put special operation forces in there," he told host Megyn Kelly.
Left unsaid during his media appearances (and left unmentioned on his congressional witness disclosure form) are Keane's other gigs: as special adviser to Academi, the contractor formerly known as Blackwater; as a board member to tank and aircraft manufacturer General Dynamics; a "venture partner" to SCP Partners, an investment firm that partners with defense contractors, including XVionics, an "operations management decision support system" company used in Air Force drone training; and as president of his own consulting firm, GSI LLC.

more at link above....
*************************************
Maybe THEY should pay for it? As of today, no one has said how we'll pay for this escalation of war.

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who's Paying the Pro-War Pundits? - The Nation (Original Post) TheNutcracker Sep 2014 OP
Excellent piece. But more correctly, media owners make PR on their networks to profit themselves. freshwest Sep 2014 #1

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
1. Excellent piece. But more correctly, media owners make PR on their networks to profit themselves.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 03:59 AM
Sep 2014

Their income stream isn't just from television, etc. They don't care about ratings or advertisers. There is more money for them in shaping public opinion.

With it, they will get many to vote for those who will do their will. And to put off those who oppose it. PBO isn't interesting in their product, so he's smeared to depress the vote. It's working perfectly.

Either way, it's designed to put their flunkies in office to get those war dollars. They are also first to call SS and ACA bad. They want that money for themselves.

Not only are the ex-military
on their payroll, the whole of MSM is, too. Relentless sales job.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Who's Paying the Pro-War ...