DISCUSSIONS OF OUR CURRENT ENDLESS WARS IN AFGHANISTAN,
IRAQ, AND SYRIA AND A LOT OF THE MEDIA HAS A TENDENCY TO FOCUS ON
THE PARTICULARLY HIGH-TECH NATURE OF THE WEAPONS USED.
THEY
ARE DESCRIBED AS "SMART" WEAPONS, AND YOU DON'T HEAR MUCH
ABOUT THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.
BUT SOME RECENT REPORTING BY THE NEW
YORK TIMES MIGHT SHOW YOU THAT WE WERE MISLED AS TO THE
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES --
>>THIS IS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE IRAQ WAR OR THE BEGINNING
OF THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIS?
>>I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE ABOUT THE TIMELINE, I KNOW THEY HAVE
RESTRICTED IT SPECIFICALLY THERE, I BELIEVE IT IS CAPPED
OUT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIS BUT FEEL FREE
TO CHECK.
IN ANY EVENT THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO IS
LIKELY TO BE TRUE IF YOU EXTENDED BACK FURTHER.
THAT
WOULD AMOUNT TO ONE OUT OF EVERY 57 STRIKES RESULTS IN CIVILIAN
DEATHS, WHICH SHOULD PROBABLY BE SUSPICIOUS, BUT THE NEW YORK
TIMES DECIDED TO SEND SOME REPORTERS TO THE GROUND IN IRAQ
TO INVESTIGATE SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
THEY ARE SAYING OVERALL
IN THE COALITION --
>>THAT IS THE TOTAL THE COALITION SAYS HAS BEEN KILLED,
GIVE OR TAKE A FEW.
BUT, PER THE NEW YORK TIMES --
>>THEY ARE SAYING THAT IT'S LIKELY THAT IT IS
ACTUALLY
HIGHER THAN THAT BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY OF GETTING ACCURATE
INFORMATION, BUT ALREADY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE IN FIVE
AND ONE IN 157, THAT'S NOT A DIFFERENT WAY OF MEASURING IT,
THAT REQUIRES A GREAT DEGREE OF WILLFUL IGNORANCE AND MISLEADING
OF THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE
IN THAT REGION, THOSE WHO HAVE LOST FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS
IN THAT REGION -- RECENTLY THERE WAS A VIDEO PUT UP OF A
SUPPOSEDLY BOMB MAKING FACTORY THAT WAS BOMBED, THE TIMES
TALKED TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THAT BUILDING, THEY WERE
CIVILIAN HOMES, AND THAT'S JUST ONE OF LITERALLY HUNDREDS THAT
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS NOT BEING WHAT THE MILITARY HAS
INITIALLY SAID THEY WERE WHEN THEY WERE BOMBED.
>>I THINK IF YOU WERE TO EXTRAPOLATE THAT, 466 CIVILIANS
KILLED --
>>THAT IS WHAT THE COALITION IS SAYING.
>>31 TIMES MORE THAN THAT, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE HAVE KILLED
31 TIMES AS MANY CIVILIANS.
>>AIR WARS SAYS IT'S AT LEAST THOUSANDS.
THEY SAY IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET ACCURATE INFORMATION, IT
MIGHT BE HIGHER.
>>30 X 466 IS OVER 13,000, ALMOST 14,000 CIVILIANS, NOT
456.
THAT SUGGESTS WE ARE LOOKING AT A HIGH FOUR DIGIT NUMBER OR
FIVE DIGIT NUMBER.
>>THAT BOTH MEANS THAT THEY ARE KILLING FAR MORE CIVILIANS
THEY HAVE SAID, BUT ALSO FAR FEWER ISIS MEMBERS.
>>AND RELATED TO THE LAST STORY, WE DON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT,
IT'S SO FAR OUT OF THE REGULAR CONVERSATION WE HAVE ABOUT TAXES
AND TAX CUTS AND FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT, BUT WE JUST PASSED
ANOTHER MILITARY SPENDING BILL WITH HUGE DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT, IT
DIDN'T REALLY EVEN GET DEBATED.
>>SPENDING MORE THAN TRUMP EVEN REQUESTED.
>>WE JUST SPEND ON WHAT KILLS PEOPLE, NOT ON WHAT SAVES
PEOPLE.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE NOT HAVE A MILITARY, I WOULD
LIKE US TO GET OUT OF THESE WARS, I THINK OVERALL IF WE
DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THESE WARS WE WOULD SEE A STUNNINGLY
DIFFERENT KIND OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, THERE WOULD BE
SOME DOWNSIDES, NO QUESTION, BUT THE FACT THAT WE DON'T AS A
COUNTRY THINK WHAT WAS THE BILL, WHAT WAS THE MILITARY'S FUNDING?
>>I THOUGHT IT WAS 700 BILLION.
>>WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE CONVERSATION OF WHAT IF WE GAVE
THEM 400 BILLION?
BY THE WAY, WE HAVE IT AGAIN NEXT YEAR.
>>AND WE DO THIS EVERY YEAR, IT'S NOT LIKE IF YOU ONLY SPEND
$200 BILLION THIS YEAR THAN YOU HAVE A CRAPPY MILITARY.
WE
ALREADY HAVE ALL THE STUFF.
OBVIOUSLY THERE IS MAINTENANCE
AND PAY AND ALL THAT.
>>AS A PERCENTAGE OF OUR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT --
>>GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT?
>>WE SPEND MORE ON THE MILITARY THAN ANYONE ELSE, NOT JUST
BECAUSE WE CAN, WE SPEND MORE AS A PERCENTAGE, AND WE DON'T HAVE
A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER WE NEED TO.
THAT IS MARGINALIZED TO
BARBARA LEE.
SHE TALKS ABOUT THAT, AND WE GO OH, BARBARA LEE,
SHE VOTED AGAINST THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.
AND WHEN PEOPLE TO
OUR LEFT MAKE THAT POINT, I FIND THEM TO BE 100% CORRECT.
THEY
ARE RIGHT AS CAN BE, THAT SOMEHOW THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS
NOT AT ANY POINT STOOD UP IN A MEANINGFUL WAY, THE WAY THE
LEADERSHIP OF THE PARTY SHOULD HAVE COME AND QUESTIONED WHETHER
IT'S OKAY BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID THEY WILL BE CALLED SOFT.
OR THEY BELIEVE IT.
>>AND MORE SO EVEN THAN GUNS OR ANY OF THESE LOBBIES, THE RAW
FATS OF THE WAY THE HOUSE IS MADE UP IS THAT IT'S MADE UP OF
PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT DISTRICTS, DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN,
WHERE THE MILITARY IS SUCH A BIG PART OF THE ECONOMY IN
THEIR DISTRICT.
>>AND THEY HAVE HELPED TO CREATE THAT.
>>THEY DIDN'T HELP TOO, THEY CREATED IT.
>>WITH THIS GOAL IN MIND.
>>IF YOU TALK TO REGULAR PEOPLE, THEY MOSTLY THINK WE SHOULD BE
SPENDING MORE.
THEY COULDN'T TELL YOU IF IT'S 700 BILLION A
YEAR OR 100 BILLION, BUT THEY KNOW IT SHOULD BE HIGHER.
IT'S
WEIRD HOW THAT WORKS OUT.
>>WE SHOULD ALSO BUILD A WALL.
>>WE SHOULD.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS INCREASED CIVILIAN
CASUALTY RATE, HERE'S A CASE STUDY OF HOW TERRIBLE THIS
IS, IN COMPARISON TO THE ISIS OCCUPATION THAT WAS GOING
ON IN THIS AREA --
>>SO FAR MORE PEOPLE WERE DYING FROM THE AIRSTRIKES THAN FROM
THE ISIS OCCUPATION.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE AREN'T
TONS OF OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF ISIS BEING IN THAT AREA, BUT IN
SHEER BLOOD OUR STRIKES WERE WORSE.
>>AND THERE WILL BE CLOWNS OUT THERE WHO LISTEN TO THE SHOW WHO
WILL SUGGEST THAT WE ARE EQUATING THE UNITED STATES
MILITARY AND ISIS, THAT WE ARE WORSE, WE ARE NEARLY 3 TIMES
MORE DEADLY THAN THEY ARE, WHICH WOULD APPEAR IN THAT TOWN WE
ARE.
THE QUESTION IS -- FIRST OF ALL THERE IS THE OWNERSHIP OF
THAT, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT WE KILLED 43 INNOCENT PEOPLE WHOSE
ONLY CRIME WAS THAT THEY WERE TERRORIZED BY THE MOST
TERRIFYING AND AWFUL PEOPLE ON THE PLANET, OR AMONG THE MOST
TERRIFYING AND AWFUL ON THE PLANET?
I MEAN ISIS, THAT THEIR
LIVES WERE RUINED BY ISIS.
WE HAVE TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF
DROPPING BOMBS ON THEM, THERE'S A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE
AREN'T INTERESTED AS A PEOPLE TO EXAMINE.
BUT THEN OF COURSE WHAT
WE TALK ABOUT FREQUENTLY, WE PAY A PRICE FOR THAT.
THERE IS A
TANGIBLE EFFECT THAT HAS, AND WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME THINKING
ABOUT THAT?
WE SPENT TIME TALKING ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T
KNOW IF WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME THINKING WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THOSE 43 PEOPLE, THEY HAD 137 CHILDREN, AND SOME WERE CHILDREN
OF COURSE, THEY HAD WIVES AND UNCLES AND COUSINS, AND THOSE
ARE ALL PEOPLE, MANY OF WHOM, WILL HATE AMERICA AND SEE
AMERICA AS A KILLER FROM THE SKY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
SOLUTION IS BUT I KNOW WE OUGHT TO BE TALKING ABOUT THAT IN A
MEANINGFUL WAY, IN THE SAME WAY WE SHOULD HAVE MEANINGFUL
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT WE SPEND ON THE MILITARY.
>>I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, IT'S A BIZARRE IDEA AND I'M WILLING TO ACCEPT
MODIFICATIONS, BUT I THINK ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THE
SENATE AND HOUSE LOOK LIKE THEY WON'T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING UNTIL
THE MIDTERMS, I THINK WE CAN SET ASIDE SIX MONTHS WHERE WE HAVE
-- THIS WILL BE THE BIGGEST THING LIKE IT IN THE HISTORY OF
OUR COUNTRY, SIX MONTHS OF HEARINGS WHERE THE HEADS OF THE
MILITARY AND THE CORPORATIONS THAT SUPPLY IT GO IN EVERY DAY,
IT'S ON TV, AND WE GO THROUGH ON A MAP EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY WHERE
WE HAVE SOLDIERS AND BASES IN THE MILITARY MAKES THE CASE FOR
WHY WE HAVE TO CONTINUE THAT.
THEN WE GO THROUGH THE TOP 100
EXPENSES OF THE MILITARY, THE PROGRAMS, THE EXERCISES, ALL OF
THAT, AND THEY MAKE THE CASE DIRECTLY TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
WHY WE NEED TO BE IN THESE PLACES AND FUNDING THESE
PROGRAMS, BECAUSE AS LONG AS IT'S CLOAKED BEHIND WE ARE OUT
THERE AND WE NEED A LOT OF STUFF, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE
REALIZE HOW BIG THE NUMBERS ARE.
BUT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
WHY DO WE HAVE 700 SOLDIERS IN THIS AFRICAN COUNTRY NOBODY
KNOWS EXISTS --
>>WE HAVE BETWEEN THREE AND 5000 ON THE BRITISH ISLAND OF DIEGO
GARCIA.
>>WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT?
>>AT MOST TWO OUT OF THREE PEOPLE AT THIS TABLE.
>>WE SHOULD SPEND TIME ON THE GOVERNMENT SIDE AND ON OUR SIDE
IN THE MEDIA COMING TO GRIPS WITH THE MILITARY EMPIRE WE HAVE
DEVELOPED, AND WHETHER CERTAIN PARTS OF IT COULD PERHAPS BE
CURTAILED.