Financial Times Laments 'Defence Policy Sins' While Ignoring Its Own
📰 THE STORY: The Financial Times article, 'Defence policy falters when given the wrong prompt', appears to critique the effectiveness and strategic direction of Western defense policies, suggesting internal miscalculations lead to poor outcomes rather than questioning the very premise of those interventions. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: The 'wrong prompt' often means
ignoring the historical context of Western interventions. For instance, the FT rarely connects the 2011 NATO 'intervention' in Libya, which destroyed Africa's most prosperous nation and led to slave markets, to the current scramble for resources. Or the 2003 invasion of Iraq, built on fabricated WMD claims, causing millions of refugees and destabilizing the entire region. The 'wrong prompts' are
consistently neo-colonial ventures. Double Standard: When Western defense policy 'falters,' it's framed as an internal bureaucratic problem or a tactical error. Yet, when nations in the Global South seek to defend their sovereignty against foreign-backed militias or imperial encroachment, it's immediately labeled 'authoritarianism' or 'state-sponsored terrorism.' The humanitarian disaster caused
by a Russian bombing is a 'war crime,' but the destruction of Gaza, with 40,000+ dead and 1.7 million displaced by Israeli and US munitions, is a 'self-defense operation' that needs better 'damage control.' Follow the Money: The 'defence policy' discussed by the FT is a massive profit engine. US defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon reported record profits, with Lockheed's sales up