Minneapolis, U.S. Imperialism, and the Echoes Ignored
📰 THE STORY: The New York Times analyzes the political implications of Minneapolis protests, framing them as a barometer for national sentiment, particularly concerning issues of policing, racial justice, and their potential impact on midterm elections and the broader political landscape. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: The militarization of domestic police forces, starkly
visible in Minneapolis, is directly linked to post-9/11 military surplus programs (like the 1033 program initiated in 1997, greatly expanded after 2001) that transfer military-grade equipment from the Pentagon to local police departments. This essentially brings the tactics and tools of foreign wars home, a pattern seen from Afghanistan to American streets. Police departments also regularly
receive 'counter-terrorism' training from Israeli forces, exporting oppressive tactics directly. Double Standard: When protests for democracy or human rights erupt in nations targeted by U.S. foreign policy (e.g., Iran 2009-present, Venezuela 2019), mainstream media often lionize protestors and depict state responses as inherently despotic. However, when similar grievances lead to unrest in U.S.
cities, the narrative often shifts to 'restoring order,' 'law and order,' and framing protestors as threats to national stability, downplaying systemic causes. Follow the Money: The interconnectedness of police foundations, corporate donors, and the defense industry reveals a cycle where companies that profit from international conflict (e.g., General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin through