My rant delineating the course of Middle East U.S. policy

[Dipsosis]

The following is a rant I wrote months ago for my own site, that I share with as many people as I can. I just wanted to comment to my man cannon Trebuchet, that the military industrial complex isn't conspiratorial so much as institutional, much like major corporations take on a Frankensteinish life of their own. I wish it was a conspiracy; that would mean someone is actually in charge.



Time to spiel... I'm merely a casual observer of history, as opposed to a scholar in the field of geopolitics, but I have some insights I wanted to share. Our current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and our "War on Terror" is just the next step in the blind two-pronged chain of knee-jerk ideological foreign policy decisions.

After losing Iran as an ally to a fundamentalist religious revolution, we got into bed with Saddam Hussein. At the time, it seemed prudent to strengthen Iraq as a safeguard against Iranian hostility. This involved financing and arming his regime, ironically, with the only WMDs Iraq ever possessed: nerve gas.

Hussein is a fascinating historical figure. It's easy to paint him as "evil" (which he was), but that's a simple term for people who need simple handles. He wasn't a "madman", but a classic Machiavellian pragmatist. Ruthless and utterly amoral, he was a dictator who operated by cold, hard calculated moves. He paid lip service to Islam, but ran one of the few secular governments in the Middle East. Exercising tyranny and death, he kept three distinctly hostile peoples united as a nation, and his borders secure.

He also went to tremendous lengths to abide by American will.

It's important to understand the motivations of individuals. Politicians and pundits have continuously painted him as an enemy of the United States, but careful examination of the full range of his actions reveals much to the contrary. When he employed nerve gas (again, supplied by us) on the Kurds, our Congress mucked around with the notion of an official condemnation of the atrocity. It failed to pass. Even still, it must be noted that Hussein took note and never employed those weapons again.

If the transcripts are accurate, Hussein consulted with our ambassador, April Gillespie on our stance in his land dispute with Kuwait. Her response to Hussein was, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." An oil-hungry tyrant couldn't ask for a brighter green light. This is classic American diplomatic bungling. As I mentioned in my last post, historically, our diplomacy and intelligence work is as awful as our pure military prowess is unsurpassed. I lean heavily toward accepting these transcripts as accurate, because the White House's response was the classic "non-denial denial".

There was a subsequent assassination attempt on Bush Sr. Cries of "Hussein tried to bomb Bush" rang loud until it was revealed that a radical faction was responsible. More recently, an anthrax scare kept fingers pointed at Baghdad until investigations revealed the point of origin to be a domestic lab. He's clearly identifiable as a "villain"; it's easy to make the leap to "enemy". But consider motivation; why would he attempt to assassinate our President, when we left him in power and had a nation to reestablish control over? What possible benefit to his beleaguered regime would there be in launching biological attacks?

Which brings us up to the invasion. As far as I can tell, he complied with every U.N. request for compliance to weapons sanctions. W. Bush clearly had an agenda to invade, regardless of Hussein's actions. I carefully followed the rhetoric at the time, and kept an open mind up until Colin Powell's presentation of "evidence" to the United Nations. A minimum of research revealed to me that said evidence was based on British intelligence almost a decade old. At that point, I tried convincing everyone about the fallacy of the reasons for the military action and the sheer cost that would be involved, but for the most part, people dismissed me as "unpatriotic" in a blind frenzy of flag waving and ribbon pinning.

The result of our invasion is that Al Queda is now operating in Iraq. There were never any ties before. Osama Bin Ladin despised Hussein for being a bad Muslim (even offered Saudi Arabia's ruler to send mujahideen to fight Iraq after they invaded Kuwait), and Hussein's tyranny kept the flow of terrorists out. There were never any ties before, but they're there now. We've lost over 3000 soldiers. We're approaching federal bankruptcy.

We also opened Pandora's Box with the policy of "preemption". It just seemed to be the coward's suckerpunch to hit them before they could hit us, even before I rejected our President's justifications. In retrospect, we've set a dangerous precedent: Japan, whose constitution allows only for defensive armed forces, is bandying about talk of attacking North Korea. If preemption is a defensive action, who's to stop them? Could China now employ such empty rhetoric to justify an invasion of Taiwan? We now have no moral ground to comment on Russia and Chechnya.

We now have rogue nuclear threats. Both Iran and North Korea are expending enormous financial and political currency to achieve nuclear status. Forget our relationship with them, their own allies are exerting tremendous pressure on them for this pursuit. Economically crippling U.N. sanctions are not deterring them. Why now, suddenly, in the face of so much cost are they continuing this path? The easy answer is, "Duh, they're the Axis of Evil". That actually is the proper answer as well, but it requires a bit more thought. Bush dubbed these three nations with the moniker, and invaded one of them. Now what's the ONE thing, the ONLY thing, that would make the United States think twice of taking military action against them?

As for the "War on Terror", all we've accomplished in Iraq is going up and smacking the beehive. We've only fostered a new generation of extremist Muslims who are now willing to take action to destroy us. They're loaded guns looking to spill blood; I can only pray that they don't have another capable leader like Osama bin Laden to point them and pull the trigger.

Most people stare at me incredulously, like I'm some kind of idiot, or flat out call me a liar, when I try to explain to them that we aided, trained, and armed the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, we spent billions of dollars in clandestine support of the Afghan mujahideen insurgents who battled the Russians. The Taliban developed from these combatants. Ronald Reagan referred to them as "freedom fighters". Today, of course, we know them as terrorists. It all really depends on who the gun is aimed at.

Now, much like Saddam Hussein, it's important to understand who Osama bin Laden is. The popular image of him seems to be that of a madman goat farmer, that just appeared onto the world stage, but the truth is that he was a wealthy, well-educated Saudi engineer and businessman. The key thing to remember is that he is a zealot to his faith. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, he left behind all his material comforts to go fight them for the sake of Islam. After receiving CIA training, and becoming a battle-hardened leader and tactician, he created Al Queda in 1988, with full U.S. knowledge. We didn't care at the time, since we weren't on their hit list. When the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, these freedom fighters/terrorists went home.

So what motivated bin Laden to turn the resources of his Al Queda network toward attacking the United States? He unleashed his fury on our soliders, our embassies, a warship, and lest we forget, the 1993 bombing of the Trade Center, long before 9/11. It's simple: the presence of several hundred thousand American soldiers on his home soil, during the first Gulf War. From his perspective, we desecrated his holy places, incurring the wrath of his god. From that event on, he's given up everything to bring ruin upon the United States. It was a foreseeable turn of events, of our own making, especially in the light of the diplomatic bungling that led to the first Gulf War.

So why did 9/11 surprise us? Did we think he wouldn't stop? Just because the annihilation of our embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Tanzania wasn't important enough to make the prime time news, did we think he wouldn't try to reach us at home? We were informed by both common sense and intelligence data, but were just too complacent to act on it.

Between Hussein and bin Laden, Iraq and Afghanistan, our government has been playing chess for decades. Only, instead of being able to look several moves ahead for victory conditions, we just take the most delicious piece in front of us. "Hey look, we can take their queen," without realizing we've left our defensive posture wide open for catastrophic losses. We made these monsters; it is a simple fact that they never would have been without our implicit support.

Examine the argument I present about the fallacy of the current war. The information I presented was freely available to anyone who could be bothered to look. Why didn't more people scream at the President not to proceed with an action that would hurt us so much? Why is it now, that we're wringing our hands and wondering how we got where we are?

We need to start paying attention to the repercussions of our policies, and demanding immediate accountability of our leaders. Also, let's vote for a competent President please? This one failed in the oil business, and couldn't run a baseball team, and we put him in charge of the most powerful nation in the world? For crying out loud!

[Dipsosis]

Here's a mini-rant that was the result of a school district banning their students from playing tag:



So yeah, no tag. No dodgeball. No defending your home from thieves. No selling a cup of joe without a disclaimer that it's hot. No law and order without signing off in triplicate over jurisdiction at every state, county, and city line.

Our nation is drowning in a deluge of litigiousness and bureaucratic red tape. There was a time when we simply took names and kicked ass and got shit done. Sure, we fucked up, but we worked at making things right, and we did it together. Now, we're being increasingly stratified and marginalized and we don't know our friends from our enemies. We're politically polite and say the right things, but share nothing meaningful as our social fabric splinters and sense of community perishes. We're stuck in conflicts we don't understand and to survive we cannibalize ourselves. We're becoming smaller and more petty, as we trade our freedom for security and our bravery for the anxious hope that someone in charge knows what the fuck they're doing.

Our kids are getting isolated and fatter and we take away tag...

[Dipsosis]

In case anyone's wondering, I love my country to the core. Despite our great many failings, never before was a nation conceived by such lofty values. All of the venom I spew is a result of my fervent desire to live up to them.
I also reiterate my love for cheese (almost to 15 posts)!

[trebuchet]

My views are in line with yours, for the most part. I would only speculate that perhaps Osama bin Laden is not the "great enemy of the people" as our government and popular media would have us believe. Consider the possibility that there are small groups of people who play a very dangerous game on a daily basis - some motivated by greed, some by lust, still others by patriotism, whatever - on the world's stage. I'm speaking of the world's espionage community. Now, I know what you're thinking, "Here goes Tre with his Masons again." But before you dismiss this response entirely, I suggest that you read Gideon's Spies. It serves as an interesting commentary on the shaping of world history since 1948 and casts a cold shadow on who we believe to be the heroes and villains of the world.

I can't dismiss bin Laden just yet, but neither am I willing to wholeheartedly accept him as the great mastermind of evil as we are lead to believe.

I've been convinced of a military conspiracy since evidence about the Kennedy assassination was released. Replace Osawald with bin Laden, Communism for Terrorism, and Vietnam for Iraq and you've got yourself a pattern.
_________________
Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"

[Dipsosis]

It's a tough sell, only because I have such little faith in peoples' abilities. Something of that magnitude would be an incredibly intricate operation. Not that I wouldn't listen intently to such allegations, but I tend to lean toward accepting the Occam's Razor explanation for events.

[trebuchet]

Fair enough. Although, from my experience, the simplest answer - and therefore the correct one, according to Occam - isn't always necessarily the most obvious one.
_________________
Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"

[Dipsosis]

It's hard for me to conceive of a system that elaborate where everyone, from such disparate origins, keeps their mouths shut.
_________________
"Face it Dee, I'm the better woman."

--David Vargas III

[trebuchet]

What I'm talking about is information control. I'm saying, hypothetically, a few people know what really happened but choose to guide what the masses believe to be the truth by releasing half-truths and innuendo to key media outlets. I don't believe that one must have absolute control over every aspect of a scheme to make it work. It could be like the building of a massive bomb. Every part is divided and compartmentalized so that the fewest people know what is actually being built. Certain variables must be controlled, especially those nearest the core, but most will take care of themselves because they are predictable. The American people are predictable, if nothing else.

I would challenge you - yes you, because you're the cleverest one out of all of us - to conceive of a way to deceive the American people into a perpetual war (for at least 8 years anyway) that will fill your arms-manufacturing pockets and keep you and your friends in power for as long possible.
_________________
Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"

[Parsifal]

I think the fact that "Paris and Nicole" get the lion's share of CNN air time is a excellent starting point for Dee.
_________________
<(@_@<), <(@_@)>, (>@_@)>, <(@_@)>, <(@_~)>, <(@_@)>, <(@_@<)

[Dipsosis]

Oh it's definitely within the realm of possibility, but the warhawks among the neo-Cons simply aren't that clever or subtle, and they were clearly the driving force behind the Iraq invasion. I just don't see any puppet strings dangling them. Despite their idiocy, their intentions appear pure. The industrial magnates couldn't possibly have orchestrated the wild confluence of events that led to the war, but yes, without a doubt, they are sharp enough to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves.

Finance driven self-censorship continues to be an issue with the media conglomerates, which definitely serves to perpetuate the current state of affairs. but as far as I'm able to perceive, it's largely an institutionalized drive, as opposed to one directed with any degree of intelligence, er, sentience. Massive organizations such as corporations tend to take on a life of their own, moving in directions independent of any steering executives attempt to do. Now, if you're talking about shenanigans on a smaller scale, like Haliburton and other Cheney cronies making out like bandits, I definitely agree.

That said, and I need more information, but thus far I'm with you on JFK. That was bizarre. There have clearly been conspiracies and power trips run amok in the past, on smaller scales. The creation of a new federal department has coincided with every major war. Out of all of them, the NSA is the most disturbing, wielding the broadest scope of power and the least amount of oversight. I found it odd that there was a fuss about the current rounds of wiretapping and eavesdropping, when it's something the NSA has been doing for YEARS.

Hrm...this post hasn't exactly been my most cogent; I'll return to this discussion when I'm not so sleepy.
_________________
"Face it Dee, I'm the better woman."

--David Vargas III

[trebuchet]

I really don't see the events that transpired to be all that convoluted. And I don't think we're talking about the same neo-conservatives. The ones I'm thinking of orchestrated JFK's assassination, put another puppet president (LBJ) in power who promptly extended our Vietnam commitment instead of withdrawing from it, and used the nation's indignation for a popular president's death to rile up all kinds of anti-communist fervor to act as a smokescreen for their true nefarious purpose in Vietnam: money. And they made out like bandits. So much so that they're doing it again. You are totally right when you say that such an undertaking cannot take place without the truth of it leaking out. Well, it did with JFK, Iran-Contra, and I believe that one day it will for 9/11.

An institutionalized mass media is actually ideal for this kind of situation: it would be utterly predictable and therefore a very useful tool for spreading misinformation. Most major news outlets simply cut and paste Associated Press wires for their national headlines anyway. And broadcast "journalism?" It's a joke! They'll say anything sensational for the ratings.

You see what I'm getting at? The way things are now everything that we take for granted in our lives - food, health, security, education, etc. - flow through certain choke points before they get to us. Like the NSA that you mentioned. Consider what I'm saying not so much as a conspiracy theory but more of a "catalytic" theory. I believe certain people have figured out how to "get the ball rolling," so to speak, and reap the harvests that their particular interests have sown - whether it be political or monetary or both.
_________________
Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"

[Dipsosis]

I do believe that we actually are in agreement, down to every subtopic. To orchestrate large scale events to your specific liking is the realm of fiction like 24. Correctly identifying the winds of change, jumping on board, perpetuating the longevity of those conditions, and milking it for all its worth...definitely.

As for JFK, that took brass cannonballs.
_________________
"Face it Dee, I'm the better woman."

--David Vargas III

[trebuchet]

And this is where we disagree. I believe that it is not, in fact, strictly in the realm of fiction. I cannot deny that, at face value, it all sounds a bit hokey but neither can I disregard the complex history of events that have brought us to this juncture.
_________________
Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"

[Dipsosis]

Well then, my stance is quite clear in my rant. It's a series of knee-jerk policy decisions perpetuated by various administrations. Coordination on the scale you're referring to requires chess-like planning and anticipation, something humanity has never shown the capacity for. It's institutional yes, but nobody's at the controls.
_________________
"Face it Dee, I'm the better woman."

--David Vargas III

[trebuchet]

Never? What about JFK and the ensuing Vietnam debacle? Iran-Contra is another recent example of precision execution (at least until too many parties starting taking a piece o' the pie). An endeavor of such great magnitude doesn't have to last for very long by historical standards (I mean, what's a decade compared to The 100 Years War or Japan's Sengoku Jidai?). All I'm saying is this: there are people who work behind the scenes and there are people who are in the public eye. The people behind the scenes hold the real power - the real "movers and shakers" of the world. The winds of change are as a plaything if your finger is on the fan switch.
_________________
Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"