Destruction of US Abrams Tank: Mosul Offensive Good for General Dynamics

us-tankBy Kurt Nimmo, Blacklisted News

In the video below the “folk hero” of the Iraqi Counter-Terror Services and regular Iraqi army takes a direct hit in the battle for Mosul.

The destruction of an Abrams tank by a Russian ATGM Kornet missile is good news if you’re a stockholder in General Dynamics Land Systems, formerly Chrysler Defense.

General Dynamics makes the Abrams battle tank.

Each one costs $9 million.

The US will simply ship another tank to replace the one destroyed along with its presumed Iraqi crew. Iraqi lives are a cheap commodity, so it will not be a problem to find another expendable tank crew.

Back in 2012 former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno testified to Congress that the Army has more than enough tanks. He suggested the line at General Dynamics be shut down temporarily. “Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We’re in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don’t need,” he said.

Congress budgeted more money for new tanks anyway. Rep. Mac Thornberry, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said more tanks were needed in Europe to confront Vladimir Putin.

Military readiness is a “consumable,” said Maj. Gen. Thomas A. Horlander, the Army’s budget director. Military hardware is “cumulative,” according to the Pentagon.

On Tuesday General Dynamics stock opened at $151.21 and closed at $152.59. Last week the corporation was awarded a $170 million contract for an air-to-ground rocket system. Earlier this month General Dynamics was awarded a $900 million contract over five years to provide engineering and technical services for major weapon systems, program technical assistance, support systems requirements and assist with production decision-making and program controls, according to MarketWatch.

The United States is the largest producer and exporter of weapons in the world. The US armed forces budget topped out over $600 billion in 2015.

U.S. Military Budgets 1948-2015

Obama FY2010-15 $663.4 billion per year
Bush Jr FY2002-09* $634.9
Clinton FY1994-2001 $418.0
Bush Sr FY1990-93 $513.4
Reagan FY1982-89 $565.0
Carter FY1978-81 $428.1
Ford FY1976-77 $406.7
Nixon FY1970-75 $441.7
Johnson FY1965-69 $527.3
Kennedy FY1962-64 $457.2
Eisenhower FY1954-61 $416.3
Truman FY1948-53 $375.7

*Excludes $80 billion supplemental added to FY2009 under Obama.

Aminata M. Kone writes:

War profiteering in itself is not new – wars have always been fought at least in part for economic gains. Today’s military-industrial complex is different in that it treats war as a business: the ruling elite’s goal of having a large military establishment is not to expand the nation’s wealth, but “to appropriate the lion’s share of existing wealth for the military establishment” (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 90). As a consequence, decisions on defense allocation, arms production and military operations are motivated by desires for profit and personal power, not necessarily by security requirements.

Mosul means zero to the average American.

It’s only important for the global elite and the military-industrial and now surveillance complex.

The Islamic State emerged from al-Qaeda in Iraq as part of a psychological operation to defeat resistance to occupation. The Pentagon predicted jihadis would take over Syria and Iraq and impose an Islamic Salafist principality. The Islamic State has yet to do that. It doesn’t matter if they do or if they don’t.

It’s all part of the ever-evolving war on terror, designed to last indefinitely.

More tanks, more missiles, more arms will be required.

You can take that to the bank.

Kurt Nimmo is the editor of Another Day in the Empire. He is the former lead editor and writer of

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

2 Comments on "Destruction of US Abrams Tank: Mosul Offensive Good for General Dynamics"

  1. The double Standards of the US of A.
    Do as we say not as we do…

    “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,” Kerry said. “It is serious in terms of sort of the modern manner with which nations are going to resolve problems. There are all kinds of other options still available to America. There still are. President Obama wants to emphasize to the American’s that there are a right set of choices that can still be made to address any concerns they have about Crimea, about their citizens, but you don’t choose to invade a country in order to do that.”

  2. Far too much militarism and jingoism around the world. Record global arms sales from the top two nation state suppliers, both nations simultaneously arming opposing “sides” to the hilt. Meanwhile…debt explodes and deliberate debasement looms (hyperinflation)…as the panopticon becomes the Omnibanopticon.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.