6/6/20 Kelley Vlahos on the Arms Dealers and Lobbyists Getting Rich as Yemen Burns

by | Jun 10, 2020 | Interviews

Kelley Vlahos discusses the scandalous ties between the arms industry and the American government, starting with the fact that so many members of the Defense Department are former employees of top arms firms like Raytheon, Lockheed, and Northrop Grumman—and vice versa. This revolving door inevitably leads to a deliberate alignment of the interests of these two parties, meaning more unnecessary wars in the Middle East so we can make and sell more bombs. In particular, the entire justification for allowing the war in Yemen to continue is the fact that America’s weapons deals with Saudi Arabia supposedly mean a great deal for our economy. President Trump has even claimed that this relationship is responsible for a million American jobs. In reality, says Vlahos, that number is probably more like 40,000, many of which are white collar consulting and lobbying jobs in Washington D.C. that are otherwise completely worthless.

Discussed on the show:

Kelley B. Vlahos is the executive editor of The American Conservative. Follow her on Twitter @KelleyBVlahos.

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: NoDev NoOps NoIT, by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com; Tom Woods’ Liberty ClassroomExpandDesigns.com/ScottListen and Think AudioTheBumperSticker.com; and LibertyStickers.com.

Donate to the show through PatreonPayPal, or Bitcoin: 1Ct2FmcGrAGX56RnDtN9HncYghXfvF2GAh.

The following is an automatically generated transcript.

Play

For Pacifica Radio, June 7th, 2020.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is Anti-War Radio.
All right, y'all.
Welcome to the show.
It is Anti-War Radio.
I'm your host, Scott Horton.
I'm the editorial director of Antiwar.com and the author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan.
You can find my full interview archive, more than 5,000 of them now, going back to 2003, at scotthorton.org and at youtube.com slash scotthortonshow.
All right, you guys, introducing Kelly B. Vallejos from the American Conservative Magazine.
She's got two important pieces for you here.
Before COVID strong, Navarro was big wars man in the White House.
And then the follow-up, turns out Saudi arms deals won't add a million jobs to the U.S. economy.
Oh, you don't say.
Welcome back to the show, Kelly.
How are you?
Oh, great.
It's awesome talking to you again.
Yeah, great to have you here.
So I guess first of all, with the first one here, this was your reaction to what was the New York Times piece, right?
All about Raytheon and their role in lobbying for the continuation of America's genocidal campaign against the civilians of Yemen.
So first of all, tell us all about what we learned in that piece.
Well, what we learned is, you know, I don't think many people are very familiar with Peter Navarro.
So up until COVID, he's sort of been behind the scenes as Trump's chief trade advisor.
He'd come out during COVID as a sort of primary spokesman for, you know, redirecting our manufacturing back from China, particularly pharmaceuticals.
And I feel like, you know, we've gotten a lot of props from people who had looked at China as sort of like, you know, dominating the manufacturing space, and people who have wanted to see, particularly in crisis, for jobs, manufacturing, and also pharmaceuticals and emergency equipment coming back to U.S. companies.
But aside from that, the New York Times had published the piece that you brought up, that it talked about his advocacy, very strong advocacy, for the defense industry inside the White House from the get-go, since he was hired.
So, you know, the idea that, you know, he is a predominant spokesperson for, you know, Made in America, America First trade policy, this doesn't begin and end with, you know, the stuff that we'd like to see happen, like, you know, being able to manufacture penicillins and vitamin C, but also exporting munitions and arms to countries that are currently involved in bombing civilians, like in Yemen.
So that's what I had written about, and I had written about his fierce advocacy, which had included lobbying on behalf of Raytheon inside the White House.
And as you know, Raytheon has, you know, this huge footprint in this administration, including, you know, the Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who is, you know, who is a former Raytheon executive and lobbyist.
So, and you see that throughout the Defense Department, you have a number of people who have bounced back and forth from the private industry, but Esper obviously is the top dog.
So aside from their small army of lobbyists that they have in Washington right now, now they have their hooks into actual White House officials and Pentagon, top Pentagon senior officials.
And it's very disturbing because, like I pointed out in the piece, that Navarro was able to thwart an effort by Senator Mike Lee, Republican constitutionalist, who had attempted to stop the sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia because of their human rights abuses, because of the things that are happening in Yemen.
We don't want to be a party to the civilian, the tens of thousands of civilian deaths there.
And Navarro was able to whisper in the ears of Jared Kushner and Trump himself, and to thwart any attempt to stop those sales.
And they have gone through, you know, there was later on, there was a bill that was passed by both the House and Senate after Jamal Khashoggi had been killed and dismembered by Saudis to stop these arms sales.
And President Trump vetoed that bill.
And so the sales gone.
Now, I mean, there was just a little sub scandal here, what, a week or so ago about Trump firing the inspector general at the State Department on Pompeo's recommendation.
And then it turned out that the inspector general, it sounded like the limited hangout was he was investigating Pompeo having staff walk his dog, when the buried lead was actually regarding this, that Pompeo had intervened and invoked, apparently illegally invoked some emergency measure to continue the arms sales, even against the will of Congress.
So, but I guess I'm confused if Trump vetoed it, which will of Congress was it that he was in violation of?
Do you know?
I think what happened was, what happened was that there was a constant battle over this $8 billion that had been set to, $8 billion worth of arms that had been set to be sold to Saudi Arabia.
So Mike Lee made an early effort to thwart it.
The sale, Navarro steps in, then later on, there's a bill and then it's vetoed.
But apparently, in order to get this $8 billion pushed through that, Congress tried to stop Secretary Pompeo and invoke this emergency declaration saying that it was an emergency for the safety of our allies against Iran, that these weapons needed to be sold.
And this is obviously controversial, and the IG was looking into it.
Now, we don't know if that's why the IG was ultimately canned by Pompeo, but it's one of the reasons that has been raised in this weird, abrupt firing, other than what you had stated were the weird, him having his staff walk his dog and pick up dry cleaning.
There's other issues regarding these dinners that he's held, these Madison dinners in which donors and other corporate types have been immediate brought in and it just smacks of, he's campaigning for 2024.
But yeah, this emergency declaration, which is a bunch of hoo-ha, really ultimately greased the skids for this arms deal.
And Trump was able to get what he wanted and Congress looks a bit masculated by it all.
Yeah.
Well, one of the things about Donald Trump, he really kind of just takes the veneer off of this thing.
Well, and also take away all of the fake laws that they have governing lobbying.
The controls they supposedly have, these grace periods where people who left the military and higher office in the Pentagon have a grace period where they cannot lobby for such and such time.
And then they find other ways of lobbying and they call it consulting.
And so these loopholes are riddled like Swiss cheese all through the Pentagon, all through the State Department, all through every major industry where it looks like, yay, we're paying attention to ethics and we really don't want lobbyists coming back.
We don't want people who have worked for staff members on the Hill or for the Secretary of Defense coming back a year later representing Raytheon or Lockheed or Northrop Grumman.
So we've passed these measures, these agencies have passed these measures to control that, and then that it's blatantly violated.
So American people think, well, there are controls.
You wouldn't possibly have somebody who had just left the Secretary of Defense office coming back and representing Lockheed Martin, but it happens all the time.
And then those guys, or they come from Lockheed and they are appointed to major influencing positions like Secretary of Defense, like Secretary of the Navy, like Secretary of the Army when they had just left places like Lockheed and Boeing.
I mean, it's amazing.
Pat Shanahan was our last Secretary of Defense and he came directly from Boeing as a major top executive.
So this happens all the time.
There's a lot of trappings of democracy and rules and ethics, but if you strip it all the way, people that are really in charge and the people who have the major influence on Capitol Hill and in the halls of the Pentagon are representing major corporations, not interest groups like the Project for Government Oversight or Win Without War or all these groups that are advocating to get out of them, and they have no presence, no presence at all.
Yeah.
And that's the other thing, right, is they can just spend a pittance, the smallest fraction of the taxpayer money that they're receiving on lobbying Congress.
You can buy a congressman for a thousand bucks if you're already in their position anyway, you know, as Ben Freeman has shown quite specifically.
Here's a lawyer for a lobbyist, donates some money to a senator and his vote changes from against genocide to for genocide in a day for $1,000.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, so yeah.
Much for their character of these members of Congress.
That's for sure.
By the way, so listen, I'm making some wild accusations with the big G word there.
And so maybe people don't know that.
Yes, in fact, when America is American companies, the American government is all working together to sell all these weapons to the Saudis, unlike the old days where they all just collected dust in their warehouses or maybe were used by their National Guard forces to, you know, oppress their own people.
Right now they're being used in a war of extermination of civilian life in Yemen for the last five years, where the entire strategy, and this is a proven fact, this strategy has been to target the civilian infrastructure, to starve and destroy and murder the civilian population of the country in a way to try to make them so miserable that they'll overthrow the government in the capital city, which is, of course, ludicrous and has not worked.
Right.
It's not working.
But, you know, our reporter at the American conservative dot com, Barbara Boland, did a piece last year where she emphasized that munitions by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and Raytheon were all identified at the site of over two dozen attacks that had killed civilians in Yemen up until that time when she, you know, produced this report.
So, you know, these bombs are showing up in, you know, that terrible carnage of those children on the school bus.
I don't know if you remember that.
That was an American laser guided bomb.
Raytheon's technology, she reports, killed 22 people attending a wedding in 2018.
So we can actually trace these companies' munitions to civilian carnage in Yemen.
And yet Congress was unable, even pointing all of this out, was unable to stop it.
It was unable to stop the sale of the weapons, and it was also unable to stop our assistance to the Saudis.
And because he says, Kelly, we're making 400 billion dollars off the Saudis.
And so, therefore, the part unsaid, but pretty explicit, is if we got to kill every last Yemeni for the money, then that'll be worth it.
Four hundred billion dollars.
What about that?
Right.
Well, I think there's two things going on here.
We have the idea that we are making money, and Donald Trump likes, he's the art of the deal, man.
He likes to make money.
He's getting lots of pressure, as we've just spoken about on the inside, to continue these deals.
He has Peter Navarro in there lobbying him personally, saying these exports are not only going to make money for the American economy, but jobs as well.
He's got pressure from the corporations.
These are his friends and CEOs who are representing themselves and their shareholders.
But he also has the pressure of Iran and the anti-Iranian narrative within the U.S. government.
And as long as there are people within the administration who make this about Iran, there's always the pressure to stay in and continue to assist the Gulf states, because somehow they've made this out to be a proxy war.
So I think that you have these two distinct tensions that are playing on Trump right now.
But getting back to the jobs, his hundred billion dollar deal was a piece of paper.
They've managed to push through $8 billion of sales since that big announcement was made.
And we're finding now that it's resulted in maybe at the very most 40,000 jobs a year, based on William Hartung's very thorough investigation of arms sales, not just Saudi, but all foreign arms sales.
So the idea that our sales of weapons to the Saudis is going to result in a million jobs for Americans has not been borne out.
It sounds good, but it's not been borne out.
We don't really know how many jobs and how many of those jobs are actually manufacturing jobs that would help the working class.
That is always implied when we talk about jobs for Americans.
We don't think of them as consulting, lobbying, executive jobs.
We think we need to sell arms so we can put more guys to work in a factory.
We don't know how many.
And I tried to find out, personally, through the trade organizations, the aerospace industry trade organization that tracks this, and they haven't made any of their numbers for defense jobs public.
I wonder why.
I tried.
So I feel like it's a bill of goods that we've been sold.
And it sounds great, especially at a time when, well, right now we have 40 million people out of work to say that we have to keep selling these weapons to foreign countries, whether they misuse them or not, because we have to keep Americans working.
I don't like that.
I mean, even if you took the fantasy of the half a trillion dollars in sales over 10 years or whatever that Donald Trump, our mercenary in chief, says is the reason why we continue this policy, that's a pittance, right?
Oh, yeah.
Thank goodness in Fort Worth, we're still turning out F-16s because our whole economy would collapse without that or without a couple of shipbuilders in New Jersey cashing in, making aircraft carriers.
That's completely ridiculous.
We could abolish that entire industry out of America and all be the better for it.
Right.
Well, I mean, this is the thing.
I mean, do we want to be a country that depends, you know, our economy depends on exporting weapons of war so that countries like Saudi Arabia can turn other countries like Yemen into a smoking crater and result in levels of cholera not seen since the 1940s?
I think that bears some sort of conversation.
And aside from that, the moral justifications that have been used to send these weapons over, but the fact that on the other side of his mouth, President Trump has talked about getting out of needless wars in the Middle East.
He won in part on that promise.
How does he think we are ever going to extricate ourselves from these entanglements, from these wars, these endless wars, if we are supplying countries to continue them and are directly linked to violence in the Middle East?
It's not going to get us out of these wars.
So it's just this self-licking ice cream cone.
And I feel that if he could threaten Saudi Arabia like he did in the last few months, when they would refuse to decrease their oil production, and he said, you watch out, Saudi Arabia.
I have leverage over you.
We have security.
We've been sending you troops to protect you ostensibly from Iran.
You know, we'll pull those if you don't play nice with us over this oil.
And he did.
He actually pulled the Patriot missiles out of there.
He started pulling troops out of there who were put into the area, into Saudi Arabia last year when they were getting there, when their oil facilities were being attacked.
And he never came out, nobody ever came out and directly linked the two things.
But he gave a speech the next day after the Pentagon announced it was pulling these assets out.
And he says, we're tired of these wealthy nations taking stuff from us and getting nothing in return.
Oh, but I'm not talking about Saudi Arabia there.
He was talking about Saudi Arabia.
So it's very sad that he was able to follow through on a threat when it looked like our oil industry was being affected by the actions of Saudi Arabia.
But the Senate had tried to send him a bill cutting off weapons of destruction because people, people were dying, not just a thousand, we're talking tens of thousands of people, and he vetoed it.
That wasn't enough.
So it's a matter of priorities, I get that.
But it would be nice if he extended his interest and putting some leverage on this country to Saudi Arabia in that regard, human rights.
Hey guys, check out Listen and Think audiobooks.
They're at listenandthink.com.
And of course on audible.com.
And they feature my book Fool's Aaron, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, as well as brand new Out Inside Syria, by our friend Reese Ehrlich, and a lot of other great books, mostly by libertarians there.
Reese might be one exception.
But essentially, they're all libertarian audiobooks.
And here's how you can get a lifetime subscription to Listen and Think audiobooks.
Just donate $100 to The Scott Horton Show at scotthorton.org slash donate.
And you know, I know that there was a some kind of bureaucratic sort of snafu the way they did the resolutions were one is the concurrent resolution and the other is the joint resolution.
And I forget which one it was they passed, but they they passed the kind you can veto instead of the kind you can't.
And so Trump just vetoed it.
But still Congress twice, the House and the Senate working together with the exact same language for the first time in history invoked the 1973 war powers resolution to try to force Trump to stop this war, a war that Obama had no authorization whatsoever to start when he started.
I mean, under the AUMF, he was bombing Al Qaeda, but this is the war for Al Qaeda against the Houthis.
And yet, you know, they hide behind Oh, well, it's the Saudi led coalition, even though again, it's entirely dependent on America and has been it's leading from behind as the Obama it's called it.
That's exactly what it is leading still.
So America is the world superpower.
There's no question about that.
And, right, and then no authorization for it in the first place.
Then Congress says you have to stop it.
And Trump just vetoes it and keeps going anyway.
Sounds like there's grounds for impeachment right there.
Not just for war crimes, because you know, he's committing war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, but at least just like we saw in the Bush years, we have a memo that says we could do that.
But there's nothing that says they can do what they're doing in Yemen at all.
It's completely illegal.
And so, you know, too bad that they wasted three years accusing him of being a Russian spy, and literally impeaching him for holding up an arms deal to a bunch of Ukrainian Nazis.
But anyway, now here we are, he's still he's five years into Obama, or sorry, four years into Obama's war in Yemen, continuing it.
And, and where's the outcry about that?
The worst thing that's happening in the whole world today.
American Saudis war against Yemen makes what's happening in America pale in comparison.
And in fact, for the audience, for people who don't know anything about this, just put in Yemen child in your Google image return.
And know that it's Barack Obama and Donald Trump that did that.
Yeah.
Well, you know, going back to the Congress for a second, I feel like and I know you have there are critics out there.
Winslow Wheeler comes to mind because every time one of these 1973 War Power Act stories come up, he he has a meltdown because the way that they have done it, like you said, sets them up for the veto.
Second of all, they have another opportunity by just not funding.
And the Congress has not been able and not been willing to just shut off the spigot.
And it sounds like the nuclear option, but come on, they know these bills are going to be vetoed.
It puts them on record as making a stand that's really nice.
And I'm glad I'm with you.
I'm happy to see that that they were able to come together twice for this and get something passed.
But for me, I'm thinking you have the power of the purse string, and they never use it because to them, that's going nuclear.
That's actually, that's putting them on record for making a stand that could have some serious repercussions with their constituencies who might be defense contracting companies who have jobs in their district.
It's taking it to another level that I think that these Weasley congresspersons do not want to do.
I think there are plenty of guys out there who would do it and gals.
I just think that it's harder for them to get support for really going nuclear, because so many are just so skittish about campaign contributions and primaries.
And that all goes back to the way the system is set up, that they're constantly running for office.
And they're getting money from members, from these PACs and from the companies and their employees.
And they get opponents who say, how dare you want to eliminate the jobs that our district is getting for the F-35, because we know these jobs are spread out all over the states purposely so that they can get the foothold in and pull these kind of stunts during election time.
So I agree.
I think that at some point, if these members really care, then they actually have to step up to the plate and stop with these resolutions.
All right.
Now, I'm sorry, because I'm over time, but I got to let you make this last point about the US funding al-Qaeda, its enemy, the only real enemy of the American people in the world, which, of course, our government made for us in the first place.
But here we are.
And backing them again in Yemen, just like in Libya and in Syria, by way of the UAE, which we're still arming and funding to in this war.
Absolutely.
And I know we don't have enough time, but CNN actually did a really good investigation last year where they found that weapons that we had been sending to UAE were ending up in the hands of these al-Qaeda linked groups in Yemen, which obviously is just a nightmare.
The government just said, we'll do our own investigation.
And apparently the Pentagon did an investigation and the State Department did an investigation.
And last week, CNN reported that they had sources inside saying that they finished their investigations and they found that there were no nefarious handover of our weapons to al-Qaeda linked groups, and that they are going to be continuing these arms sales.
UAE was cleared.
And so any hold that had been put on arms sales to the UAE in that time has been lifted.
This is in the middle of coronavirus.
This is in the middle of all sorts of crises that are going on in this country, but let's get those arms sales to the UAE running.
And let's just put out, besides the Yemen, al-Qaeda linked issues, we know that both of these countries are violating people's rights.
And that is supposed to be a precursor or an obstacle for us to sell them weapons under State Department rules.
We just overlook that.
All right, you guys, that's Kelly Vlahos from the American Conservative Magazine.
Her latest is, turns out Saudi arms deals won't add a million jobs to the US economy.
Thank you so much, Kelly.
Thanks, Scott.
All right, y'all, and that's Antiwar Radio for the day.
Thanks very much for listening.
I'm your host, Scott Horton, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com and author of Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan.
Again, find my full interview archive, more than 5,000 of them now, going back to 2003 at scotthorton.org and at youtube.com slash scotthortonshow.
I'm here every Sunday morning from 8.30 to 9 on KPFK 90.7 FM in LA.
See you next week.

Listen to The Scott Horton Show