What the Hell Do They Want?
I just don't get it. Any attempt I make to even figure out the motives of the NeoCon cabal falls short at this point. What the hell are they trying to accomplish anymore with their foreign policy? Do they themselves even know at this point, or are they just going through the motions?
We know full well that they are doing everything they can to start a war with Iran. That much is clear. Every day brings two or three more reports on the latest attempt to escalate tensions with Iran diplomatically, strategically, militarily, and otherwise. But to what end?
It's an important point to raise, because you can only really negotiate with people who have a certain end or goal in mind. In the world of realpolitik, it is assumed that everybody has a price. Everybody has a motive. Everybody has something they are trying to accomplish, some direct policy objective they want fulfilled. That's what enables compromise.
One cannot come to the political discussion table with an opponent you truly believe to be a villainous psychopath. That is, after all, what many in wingnut circles say about talking diplomatically to certain people in the Middle East--and there's an element of truth in that. There is absolutely no point attempting to engage in compromise, diplomacy or politics as usual with the insane and insatiable.
Well, I think I'm starting to reach that point with the Bush Administration. I can't figure out what the hell they even want anymore--especially when it comes to attacking Iran.
Let's look at the possible motivations for attacking Iran, shall we?
1. Oil Profiteering. Sorry, but that motive doesn't fly. Today brings news that Exxon-Mobil has set record profits for ANY U.S. business, totaling $39.5 BILLION--and that Royal Dutch Shell isn't far behind. They can't profit much more than they already are in the short term. There are no words for the sort of greed it would take to attempt to increase those profits through a hair-brained foreign policy scheme that is almost certain to backfire.
And while it is certainly true that oil supplies are dwindling over the long term as we debate whether we may or may not have already passed the point of peak oil, the point remains the same: there is at least enough oil for the next 15 years to keep the oil companies rolling in obscene amounts of cash. That's more than enough time to await a homegrown Iranian revolution against the mullahs to open up its oil supplies, which would be a far better bet if I were an oil executive than any sort of military action. It just doesn't make sense.
2. National Defense. The NeoCons know good and goddamn well that Iran is at least eight years away from a nuclear weapon of any kind--and those may be liberal estimates. That's why they're doing everything they can to suppress intelligence estimates and out CIA agents who might spill the beans about their unnecessary (not to mention illegal and immoral) drumbeat towards war. Iran isn't about to attack the United States or its allies. Iran isn't about to give Hezbollah nuclear weapons. They know it. We know it. The "national defense" pretense is a sham.
3. Religious Armaggedon. It is difficult to judge the possibility of religious motivation by these people. Certainly, much of their base believes the world is coming to an end, and cannot wait to have a full-blown World War III conflict with the Muslim World in defense of Israel, in the hopes that the Palestinians will be destroyed and the Temple in Jerusalem rebuilt. But Ahmadinejad makes a weak and very sorry-looking Anti-Christ, while the majority of the conflicts in the Book of Revelation are supposed to occur around New Babylon (Iraq). Persia (Iran) doesn't really figure into the equation in most end-times prophecies. Further, I don't believe that most of the people who actually pull the strings in the Administration believe any such things.
Meanwhile, if I were a religious millennarian freak who wanted to bring about Biblical prophecy, wouldn't I hope for Iran to give a nuclear bomb to Palestinian terrorists, who would then set it off in Israel--thereby causing mass ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people and triggering religious reactionism in Israel leading to de-Islamification and rebuilding of the Temple in place of the Dome of the Rock? The last thing I would want, if I believed in such prophecies and in Iran's desire to do such a thing, would be to stop them.
It just doesn't make sense.
4. The Oil Bourse in Euros. Remember that big Iranian Oil Bourse that was supposed to open in March 2006? It didn't happen. And it doesn't look like it's going to, either. Iran doesn't have its structural or economic act together enough to pull it off anytime soon--and even if they did, it wouldn't actually have that great an impact on the influence of the petrodollar. If the threat of the Iranian-based PetroEuros ever was scaring the Administration, I doubt very much that it is anymore.
5. Iranian Influence in Iraq. Hahahahahahaha, that's a good one. The Administration may be desperate to frame the Iranians for troubles going on in Iraq, but they don't actually believe it. Next, please.
6. Obtaining a U.S.-friendly democratic state in Iran. It's pretty clear to me that even the most deluded NeoCon in the world couldn't possibly believe, after what has happened in Iraq, that Iranians would overthrow their mullahs in the wake of U.S. bombings and proclaim their undying love for democracy and for the United States. Even they know that attacking Iran will have results ranging from World War III to increased terrorism and hatred of the United States. We sure as hell won't be greeted as liberators--and they know it.
7. Furthering the Military-Industrial Complex. Sorry, but no. There is an excellent documentary called Why We Fight that chronicles the role of the MIC in perpetuating U.S. backed wars. But that argument really fails the smell test for Iran: after all, the MIC can barely keep up with the amount of damage being done to military infrastructure in Iraq. It certainly doesn't need another massive conflict to support its operations--it has its hands full as it is. That goes for Halliburton and Bechtel, too.
---------------------------------------------------
What then, could their objective in attacking Iran possibly be?
Is it really true that they're willing to roll the dice, hoping they get doubles sixes, simply in order to satiate an inexorable greed for which we would have to generate an entirely new vocabulary?
Is it simply that Bush/Cheney are looking to salvage their presidency just by throwing shit on the wall? I think that's unlikely, given the length of time that the Iran war plans have been in the works.
Are they crazed religious nutballs? Color me unconvinced. They're evil, Machiavellian assholes--but I doubt they're really Messianic in their beliefs.
Are they truly so terrorized by the events of 9/11 that they really believe in starting World War III and earning global denunciation in pursuit of the One Percent Doctrine?
Are they so desperate to make their plan in Iraq work that they would be willing to start a war with Iran just to see what happens?
What the hell are they even trying to do here? What the hell do they want?
Or are they just insane, insatiable bastards who are looking to invade one OPEC country after another just because they can?
And if so, what options outside of forcible removal from office do we, as responsible American citizens, have left?
We know full well that they are doing everything they can to start a war with Iran. That much is clear. Every day brings two or three more reports on the latest attempt to escalate tensions with Iran diplomatically, strategically, militarily, and otherwise. But to what end?
It's an important point to raise, because you can only really negotiate with people who have a certain end or goal in mind. In the world of realpolitik, it is assumed that everybody has a price. Everybody has a motive. Everybody has something they are trying to accomplish, some direct policy objective they want fulfilled. That's what enables compromise.
One cannot come to the political discussion table with an opponent you truly believe to be a villainous psychopath. That is, after all, what many in wingnut circles say about talking diplomatically to certain people in the Middle East--and there's an element of truth in that. There is absolutely no point attempting to engage in compromise, diplomacy or politics as usual with the insane and insatiable.
Well, I think I'm starting to reach that point with the Bush Administration. I can't figure out what the hell they even want anymore--especially when it comes to attacking Iran.
Let's look at the possible motivations for attacking Iran, shall we?
1. Oil Profiteering. Sorry, but that motive doesn't fly. Today brings news that Exxon-Mobil has set record profits for ANY U.S. business, totaling $39.5 BILLION--and that Royal Dutch Shell isn't far behind. They can't profit much more than they already are in the short term. There are no words for the sort of greed it would take to attempt to increase those profits through a hair-brained foreign policy scheme that is almost certain to backfire.
And while it is certainly true that oil supplies are dwindling over the long term as we debate whether we may or may not have already passed the point of peak oil, the point remains the same: there is at least enough oil for the next 15 years to keep the oil companies rolling in obscene amounts of cash. That's more than enough time to await a homegrown Iranian revolution against the mullahs to open up its oil supplies, which would be a far better bet if I were an oil executive than any sort of military action. It just doesn't make sense.
2. National Defense. The NeoCons know good and goddamn well that Iran is at least eight years away from a nuclear weapon of any kind--and those may be liberal estimates. That's why they're doing everything they can to suppress intelligence estimates and out CIA agents who might spill the beans about their unnecessary (not to mention illegal and immoral) drumbeat towards war. Iran isn't about to attack the United States or its allies. Iran isn't about to give Hezbollah nuclear weapons. They know it. We know it. The "national defense" pretense is a sham.
3. Religious Armaggedon. It is difficult to judge the possibility of religious motivation by these people. Certainly, much of their base believes the world is coming to an end, and cannot wait to have a full-blown World War III conflict with the Muslim World in defense of Israel, in the hopes that the Palestinians will be destroyed and the Temple in Jerusalem rebuilt. But Ahmadinejad makes a weak and very sorry-looking Anti-Christ, while the majority of the conflicts in the Book of Revelation are supposed to occur around New Babylon (Iraq). Persia (Iran) doesn't really figure into the equation in most end-times prophecies. Further, I don't believe that most of the people who actually pull the strings in the Administration believe any such things.
Meanwhile, if I were a religious millennarian freak who wanted to bring about Biblical prophecy, wouldn't I hope for Iran to give a nuclear bomb to Palestinian terrorists, who would then set it off in Israel--thereby causing mass ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people and triggering religious reactionism in Israel leading to de-Islamification and rebuilding of the Temple in place of the Dome of the Rock? The last thing I would want, if I believed in such prophecies and in Iran's desire to do such a thing, would be to stop them.
It just doesn't make sense.
4. The Oil Bourse in Euros. Remember that big Iranian Oil Bourse that was supposed to open in March 2006? It didn't happen. And it doesn't look like it's going to, either. Iran doesn't have its structural or economic act together enough to pull it off anytime soon--and even if they did, it wouldn't actually have that great an impact on the influence of the petrodollar. If the threat of the Iranian-based PetroEuros ever was scaring the Administration, I doubt very much that it is anymore.
5. Iranian Influence in Iraq. Hahahahahahaha, that's a good one. The Administration may be desperate to frame the Iranians for troubles going on in Iraq, but they don't actually believe it. Next, please.
6. Obtaining a U.S.-friendly democratic state in Iran. It's pretty clear to me that even the most deluded NeoCon in the world couldn't possibly believe, after what has happened in Iraq, that Iranians would overthrow their mullahs in the wake of U.S. bombings and proclaim their undying love for democracy and for the United States. Even they know that attacking Iran will have results ranging from World War III to increased terrorism and hatred of the United States. We sure as hell won't be greeted as liberators--and they know it.
7. Furthering the Military-Industrial Complex. Sorry, but no. There is an excellent documentary called Why We Fight that chronicles the role of the MIC in perpetuating U.S. backed wars. But that argument really fails the smell test for Iran: after all, the MIC can barely keep up with the amount of damage being done to military infrastructure in Iraq. It certainly doesn't need another massive conflict to support its operations--it has its hands full as it is. That goes for Halliburton and Bechtel, too.
---------------------------------------------------
What then, could their objective in attacking Iran possibly be?
Is it really true that they're willing to roll the dice, hoping they get doubles sixes, simply in order to satiate an inexorable greed for which we would have to generate an entirely new vocabulary?
Is it simply that Bush/Cheney are looking to salvage their presidency just by throwing shit on the wall? I think that's unlikely, given the length of time that the Iran war plans have been in the works.
Are they crazed religious nutballs? Color me unconvinced. They're evil, Machiavellian assholes--but I doubt they're really Messianic in their beliefs.
Are they truly so terrorized by the events of 9/11 that they really believe in starting World War III and earning global denunciation in pursuit of the One Percent Doctrine?
Are they so desperate to make their plan in Iraq work that they would be willing to start a war with Iran just to see what happens?
What the hell are they even trying to do here? What the hell do they want?
Or are they just insane, insatiable bastards who are looking to invade one OPEC country after another just because they can?
And if so, what options outside of forcible removal from office do we, as responsible American citizens, have left?
posted by thereisnospoon at 8:55 PM
2 Comments:
HERE'S YOUR ANSWER:
The U.S. Department of Defense, headquartered in the Pentagon, is one of the most massive organizations on the planet, with net annual operating costs of $635 billion, assets worth $1.3 trillion, liabilities of $1.9 trillion and more that 2.9 million military and civilian personnel as of fiscal year 2005.
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
It is difficult to convey the complexity of the way DOD works to someone who has not experienced it. This is a massive machine with so many departments and so much beaurocracy that no president, including Bush totally understands it.
Presidents, Congressmen, Cabinet Members and Appointees project a knowledgeable demeanor but they are spouting what they are told by career people who never go away and who train their replacements carefully. These are military and civil servants with enormous collective power, armed with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Defense Industrial Security Manuals, compartmentalized classification structures and "Rice Bowls" which are never mixed.
Our society has slowly given this power structure its momentum which is constant and extraordinarily tough to bend. The cost to the average American is exhorbitant in terms of real dollars and bad decisions. Every major power structure member in the Pentagon's many Washington Offices and Field locations in the US and Overseas has a counterpart in Defense Industry Corporate America. That collective body has undergone major consolidation in the last 10 years.
What used to be a broad base of competitive firms is now a few huge monoliths, such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Boeing.
Government oversight committees are carefully stroked. Sam Nunn and others who were around for years in military and policy oversight roles have been cajoled, given into on occasion but kept in the dark about the real status of things until it is too late to do anything but what the establishment wants. This still continues - with increasing high technology and potential for abuse.
Please examine the following link to testimony given by Franklin C. Spinney before Congress in 2002. It provides very specific information from a whistle blower who is still blowing his whistle (Look him up in your browser and you get lots of feedback) Frank spent the same amount of time as I did in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) but in government quarters. His job in government was a similar role to mine in defense companies. Frank's emphasis in this testimony is on the money the machine costs us. It is compelling and it is noteworthy that he was still a staff analyst at the Pentagon when he gave this speech. I still can't figure out how he got his superior's permission to say such blunt things. He was extremely highly respected and is now retired.
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/spinney_testimony_060402.htm
The brick wall I often refer to is the Pentagon's own arrogance. It will implode by it's own volition, go broke, or so drastically let down the American people that it will fall in shambles. Rest assured the day of the implosion is coming. The machine is out of control.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting on this blog entitled, "Odyssey of Armaments"
http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/odyssey-of-armaments.html
On the same subject, you may also be interested in the following sites from the "Project On Government Oversight", observing it's 25th Anniversary and from "Defense In the National Interest", inspired by Franklin Spinney and contributed to by active/reserve, former, or retired military personnel. More facts on the Military Industrial Complex can be gleaned from "The Dissident" link, also posted below:
http://pogo.org/
http://www.d-n-i.net/top_level/about_us.htm
http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/the-military-industrial-complex-and-the-business-of-war/
if you're right and it really is all about the MIC, then we'll need a Swords-to-Ploughshares program and quick.
Post a Comment
<< Home