by Jacob G. Hornberger

September 4, 2026

With the sudden and unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1989–1991, the U.S. national-security establishment went into a full-blown panic. For some 45 years, the Cold War had been the most lucrative racket in U.S. history. “The Reds are coming!” By inculcating the fear that the commies were coming to take over America and teach communism in the public (i.e., government) schools, U.S. officials were able to justify the necessity of converting the federal government from a limited-government republic, as established by the Constitution, to a national-security state, a type of governmental structure that comes with omnipotent unconstitutional powers, including assassination, torture, and indefinite detention.

The conversion also came with money — lots of taxpayer-funded money, year after year, not only for the permanent military-intelligence establishment but also for the ever-growing army of fat-cat “defense contractors” who were gorging at the public trough.

The best part of the racket was that the people getting fleeced — that is, American taxpayers — were fully supportive of the racket. That’s because they didn’t know it was a racket. They really thought that the Reds were coming to get us. That’s why Americans supported the Korean War, the Vietnam War (well, at least at the start), the anti-communist crusade here at home, and the coups and assassinations in foreign countries.

Everyone, of course, was certain that the anti-communist crusade and Cold War racket would go on forever. And then, suddenly, it came to an end. Americans began calling for a “peace dividend,” which would mean a drastic reduction in military-intelligence spending. At some point, people were bound to begin asking a much more important question: Why can’t we have our limited-government republic back that the Constitution established?

The national-security establishment was not about to go down, at least not without a fight. It just needed a new racket. That’s when it went into the Middle East and began killing people. It started with the Persian Gulf War, when U.S. forces killed multitudes of Iraqis. That was followed by 11 years of brutal economic sanctions whose purpose was the removal of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power and his replacement with another pro-U.S. dictatorial stooge.

I say “another” because the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein had previously been a partner and ally of the U.S. national-security establishment. That was back in the 1980s, when U.S. officials were supporting Saddam in his war against Iran. U.S. officials were still angry with Iranians for having ousted their brutal dictator, the Shah of Iran, who the CIA had helped restore to power in 1953. Thus, still thirsting for revenge, Pentagon and CIA officials were more than willing to help Saddam kill as many Iranians as he could.

Those economic sanctions against Iraq were brutal. They succeeded in killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens and severely impoverishing millions of them. U.S. officials didn’t care. They were just hoping that the Iraqi people would rise up and oust Saddam from power. It didn’t work. Saddam Hussein remained in power.

No matter. In the minds of U.S. officials, the regime-change effort was worth it. That was the phrase that U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright used when Sixty Minutes asked her if the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.” Expressing the mindset of U.S. officials, Albright responded yes — that those deaths were “worth it.” By “it,” she meant regime change.

When the 9/11 attacks came, U.S. officials said that it was because the terrorists (and the Muslims) hated America for its “freedom and values.” It was a lie — a knowing, deliberate, intentional lie. The truth was that all those deaths and all that suffering that the U.S. national-security establishment had inflicted on the Iraqi people, including those children, motivated people in the Middle East to retaliate. That’s why those people struck back on 9/11. (That’s assuming, of course, that the 9/11 attacks were not an inside job, as many reputable and credible people maintain — which would have been another way for the U.S. national-security establishment to justify its continued existence.)

With the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. national-security establishment was off to the races once again. The “war on terrorism” (or “war on Islam”) racket arguably became even better than the “war on communism” racket. Americans were terrified. “The terrorists are coming! The Muslims are coming to establish Sharia law in our communities!”

Then came the USA Patriot Act, illegal surveillance schemes, the TSA airport takeover, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and, well, the permanent destruction of liberty and privacy in America at the hands of the U.S. national-security establishment. The worst of it is that the racket worked — the tyranny was fully supported by the vast majority of frightened American men and women.

But the national-security establishment wasn’t finished. They weren’t about to let go of their old lucrative Cold War racket. As they were waging their new “war on terrorism” racket, they had NATO absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact, with the aim of provoking Russia into invading Ukraine. The plan worked brilliantly. When NATO pulled the trigger by inviting Ukraine to join the alliance, which would have meant U.S. nuclear missiles and German troops on Russia’s border, Russia did what it had promised to do — it invaded Ukraine.

The U.S. national-security state was now off to the races again, in a double way. It now had the “war on terrorism” racket and its old Cold War racket operating side by side, thereby assuring the continued, permanent destruction of the liberty, privacy, and economic well-being of the American people — with the ostensible purpose of keeping them safe from the Reds and the terrorists (and the Muslims, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and other scary boogeymen).

And these two rackets just keep going on and on — unfortunately with the full support of many Americans who, with their deep fear of just about everything, are still eager to trade away their liberty in the hope of being kept safe.