But the American people apparently missed all those
White House warnings about "generational commitments." Too busy watching the Michael Jackson trial, I guess. But what happens if (or, more likely, when) the voters decide that one generation of dead and maimed American soldiers is one too many? What if they don’t want to go to Tehran?
Back to Main
June 19, 2005
Going to Tehran
Comments
FWIW Rice, and some other members of the Bush administration, have always thought of some sort of regional transformation in the mideast as a “generational commitment”. Its just the war they haven’t previously described that way.
August 7, 2003 — Condoleezza Rice
But if that different future for the Middle East is to be realized, we and our allies must make a generational commitment to helping the people of the Middle East transform their region.
February 23, 2004 — Scott McClellan
This is a generational commitment the President is making to the Middle East, and Iraq can be an important step in moving toward freedom and democracy throughout the greater Middle East.
April 8, 2004 — Condoleezza Rice
"This is really the generational challenge," Rice replied to the panel vice chairman. "The kinds of issues that you are addressing have to be addressed, but we’re not going to see success on our watch."
June 9, 2004 — G8 press release (via White House)
5.8. Supporting reform in the region, for the benefit of all its citizens, is a long-term effort, and requires the G-8 and the region to make a generational commitment.
February 2, 2005 — George Bush
Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq.
March 8, 2005 — George Bush
Encouraging democracy in that region is a generational commitment.
Posted by: silence | Jun 19 2005 22:31 utc | 1
FWIW, This January 28, 2005 letter by the PNAC appears to coincide with the change in language, and the conversion of the commitment from a general one to promote democracy into a specific military commitment to Iraq:
Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice’s term, a “generational commitment.” The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
Posted by: silence | Jun 19 2005 22:43 utc | 2
@silence – Not quite the whole story:
There are just as many quotes that say it’s not. See some at this link.
And since when is a “generational commitment” equivilant to a generational war? You know – rising a baby is a “generational commitment”. Do you use MK77 to raise your kids?
b: The “generational commitment” started out as a relatively benign commitment to fostering democracy in the mideast. It is only since the PNAC letter that I’ve seen that language tied tightly to the war.
Posted by: silence | Jun 19 2005 22:48 utc | 4
b,
That is an excellent point.
Let us expand: Do we sow the ground with uranium to raise the next generation in Iraq?
They need to eat these words, these words in particular.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 19 2005 23:04 utc | 5
The recent military provocations seem to show a policy in no way oriented toward political stability, in Iraq especially. Is it so farfetched to believe covert US involvement in last week’s preelection bombings in Khuzestan?
The logic of making matters worse in order to vindicate policy is what fascists do. Just as Republicans purposely create fiscal crises to justify “welfare-reform,” expanding the ME crisis will assure our “generational commitments.” athe logic of crisis is reproduced over and over until the only solutions are the ones gravely offered by rightwing, fascistic “pragmatists.”
And it works.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 19 2005 23:26 utc | 6
By George! I think I’ve (finally) got it.
When it looks like the fruitcakes in Washington are coming up with a megalomanic, batshit-insane, doomed-to-failure plan straight from a Hollywood “B” movie written by a half-arsed committee with no grasp of plot or structure, with nothing to recommend it but violence and destruction; I am not to dismiss it as impossible but on the contrary I am to consider it to be almost certainly the plan which they are in fact pursuing.
So, per our first ever female drag queen secretary of state, since aug. 03 our policy has been to make this generational commitment to transforming the middle east. Wasn’t this about the time things started falling apart?
Posted by: ken melvin | Jun 19 2005 23:36 utc | 8
To use the word again: iatrogenesis. The policy of the fascists–and “fascism” is certainly appropriate description of “the Cheney admin”–is politically iatrogenic. How else to describe these formations of crisis?
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 19 2005 23:36 utc | 9
Re: the general condition in Mesopotamia and the threatening attack on Iran I am reminded of Tacitus words “flagitiis manifestis subsidium ab audacia petendum”.When the crimes are obvious help from daring is to be sought.
Posted by: JLCG | Jun 19 2005 23:49 utc | 10
What was it that PNAC needed originally to enact their vision? How did they put it? Something along the lines of a new Pearl Harbor, I beleive. With another 9/11 catastophe, say, avenging Fallujah, wouldn’t that justify a draft? Rekindle flagging political will? Then it’ll be on to Tehran, boys and girls! It seems to have worked once before.
Posted by: Jim | Jun 20 2005 0:12 utc | 11
Yes, the folks at the PNAC thought a Pearl Harbor-like event could speed up their desired transformation:
Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.
Posted by: silence | Jun 20 2005 0:21 utc | 12
The big question has been when? and more importantly, how? – American airstrikes, Israeli airstrikes?
But a ground invasion by Iraqi Shiite divisions? Billmon is right – that is absolutely nuts.
As to the American people, if the price of oil keeps going up, $58 per barrel on Friday, and the economy tanks, then most of our fellow citizens will be up for anything.
Does anyone think Bush can get Blair to go along with this one? After all, Bush has screwed him on
Climate Change
and on
Using Napalm in Fallujah.
Posted by: tgs | Jun 20 2005 0:35 utc | 13
Even if there is supposed to be a ground troop invasion this summer there aren’t enough trained and orgainzed troop to do it at this time.
Asssuming some type of sepctacular disaster, ie “Pearl Harbor” even, also is a loser, because of the large number of people looking at this type of activity. Pearl Harbor II would be workable if the dividends of Pearl Harbor I, had not been used to dig the hole even deeaper. I believe Smith’s quote was Team Blair would support Team Bush in another war when hell freezes over, these are just the enemies of Team Bush willing to say so publically.
Cheney’s M.O. in states of extreme weakness, is to lash out suddenly and dramatically. So we expect some type of show this summer, or early fall. However, the Cheney Bull dog only works when people give him a pass. So the best strategy is to see to it that any type of bulldog action cuases him to hang himself, and many are working toward this end currently. At this point Tehran remains a delusion, or an option for complete political suicide.
Posted by: patience | Jun 20 2005 0:54 utc | 14
a ground invasion by Iraqi Shiite divisions? Billmon is right – that is absolutely nuts.
While it may sound crazy, it’s also true that a lot of Iraqi Shi’as fought and died fighting the Iranians in the first war. Maybe the neocons figured: “Hey, if they’ll be cannon fodder for Saddam, maybe they’ll fight for us, too.” You can also imagine what Chalabi and company were telling the neocons before the invasion — the Iraqi Shi’a love America, they hate the mullahs, they’ll rally to your cause, etc. Whatever the neocons wanted to hear.
If the original idea really was to use the new Iraqi Army against Iran, it probably was supposed to support and supplement the American spearheads and provide the bulk of the occupation forces — the same way that the leader of a certain central European country tried to use Hungarian and Romanian troops when he invaded the Soviet Union.
Of course, even if such a plan were not crazy to begin with, it certainly would be now, given that 150,000 American troops can barely keep Iraq from falling apart, much less invade a country 10 times Iraq’s size. But it may take a lot more than 1,700 dead U.S. soldiers to convince Dick Cheney and der Field Marshall of that.
Posted by: Billmon | Jun 20 2005 1:08 utc | 15
Scott Ritter Article: US War on Iran has already begun
Snip:
But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran….
Snip:
…Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 20 2005 1:18 utc | 16
The Big Race – Who Will Win?
Will Cheney-Bush pull 912/Invade Iran or will they be impeached/overthrown first?
New Nails in their Coffin are all around us. Just today:
1) New AbuG photos/videos coming out in response to a FOIA suit by ACLU.
As many as 144 photos and still images from four videotapes could be made public in coming weeks, as soon as the Pentagon finishes editing them to conceal the identify of the victims.
The digital photos are from the same batch amassed by Army Spc. Joseph Darby, who was based at Abu Ghraib. Darby turned the photos over to military investigators last year.
Blogger attention might be able to help here, as Judge Alvin Hellerstein (NYC) gave govt. til June 30 to release photos; but the govt. has asked for extension til July 22 – by which time Congress may be in recess, or about to leave, & Americans thoughts will be elsewhere as well. link
2) Arlen Spectre, chair of Senate Judiciary Committee, announced he’ll hold hearings on legal status of Guantanamo prisoners – hoping to regain the credibility he lost by caving to Theocrats on Extremist Judges! link
3) “Squandered Victory” just reviewed in NYT. Book written by Rice’s Stanford Colleague & friend, Larry Diamond, a specialist in creating democratic regimes (??), who went there at her request. Thinking people will read this, realize they blew it. To hear any talk of possibly widening the war by these clowns, will doubtless push many very sober pragmatists into the Big I camp, if that’s what it takes to get them out.
When Mr. Diamond returned to the United States in April 2004, he says, he wrote his old friend Ms. Rice a long, confidential memo, recommending that America “disavow any long-term military aspirations in Iraq,” establish a target date for the withdrawal of our forces, respond to concerns about Iraqi detainees, proceed vigorously with a plan to disarm and reintegrate Iraqi militias and send “significantly more troops and equipment.”
The memo concluded: “If we do not develop soon a coherent counter-insurgency plan combining political and military, Iraqi and international initiatives, we will creep closer and closer to that tipping point, beyond which so many Iraqis sympathize with or join the insurgency that we cannot prevail at any bearable price.”
He says he never heard back from Ms. Rice or her principal assistant for Iraq, Robert Blackwill.
Posted by: jj | Jun 20 2005 1:55 utc | 17
Who? What? When? How? and of course, Why? And most importantly and finally-Where?
The answers can be very complex, but supposedly the questions should be simple.
For me, it seems as though, we are living through a period when the answers are rediculously simple but its the questions that are so very perplexing.
I continue to wrap my mind around more and more information and the more information I obtain the more perplexed I get. Something is nagging me and nagging me but remains completely elusive-something is missing. For one thing, the information is so easy to get and so simple in its resulting explanation. I discount the information about the christain fundamentalists and the neocons-they are just being used. That leaves the corporatists.
I keep coming back to the Where question? I don’t even understand why I bother with Where. It seems so unnessesary. But it keeps popping up.
Where do these people plan on living in the future? Once they have completed the plan to establish a global aristocracy controlling all the earth’s resouces which in the process of, they have polluted the planet beyond reclamation-Where do they plan on living? The corporatists don’t believe in Armagaden or Isreal or even God for that matter, only money and power. So where do they think their heirs will live. Do they already have an answer, a secret clean up plan, a secret space colony? This bothers me.
Posted by: Mary | Jun 20 2005 2:45 utc | 18
Iran’s Evolving Military Forces – July 2004 PDF
The Iranian Army is still large by regional standards. It has some 350,000 men (20,00+ conscripts), organized into four corps, with four armored divisions, six infantry divisions, two commando brigades, an airborne brigade and other smaller independent formations. It has some 1,565 main battle tanks, although only 480-580 can be described as “modern” by Gulf standards, 865 other armored fighting vehicles, 550-670 armored personnel carriers, 2,085 towed artillery weapons, 310 self-propelled artillery weapons, more than 890 multiple rocket launchers, some 1,700 air defense guns and large numbers of light anti-aircraft missiles, large numbers of anti-tank weapons and guided missiles, and some 50 attack helicopters. This is a large inventory of major weapons, although many are worn and obsolete.
-snip-
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards add some 120,000 additional men to Iran’s forces. Roughly 100,000 are ground forces, including many conscripts. Some 20,000 are in the naval branch, and there is a small air force. Estimates of its fighting strength are highly uncertain. The IISS estimates that it has some 470 tanks, 620 APCs, 360 artillery weapons, 40 multiple rocket launchers, and 150 air defense guns. The naval branch has at least 40 light patrol boats, 10 Houdong guided missile patrol boats armed with C-802 antiship missiles, and a battery of HY-2 Seersucker land-based anti-ship missiles. The air branch is believed to operate Iran’s three Shahab-3 IRBM units, and may have had custody of its chemical and any biological weapons. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, announced that Shahab-3 missiles had been delivered to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. In addition, six Shahab-3s were displayed in Tehran during a military parade in September 2003.11 According to the IISS, the IRGC now has command of Iran’s Marine Brigade of some 5,000 men. Other sources show this force subordinated to the Navy.
-snip-
The IRGC has a large component for intelligence operations and unconventional warfare. Roughly 5,000 of the men in the IRGC are assigned to the unconventional warfare mission. The IRGC has the equivalent of one special forces “division,” plus additional smaller formations, and these forces are given special priority in terms of training and equipment. In addition, the IRGC has a special Quds force which plays a major role in giving Iran the ability to conduct unconventional warfare overseas using various foreign movements as proxies. This force is under the command of General Ahmad Vahidi (Wahidi), who used to head the information department in the IRGC General Command and had the mission of exporting the revolution.
-snip-
The Basij and Other Paramilitary Forces. The rest of Iran’s paramilitary and internal security forces seem to have relatively little warfighting capability. The Basij (Mobilization of the Oppressed) is a popular reserve force of about 90,000 men with an active and reserve strength of up to 300,000 and a mobilization capacity of nearly 1,000,000 men. It is controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, and consists largely of youths, men who have completed military service, and the elderly. It has up to 740 regional battalions with about 300-350 men each, which are composed of three companies or four platoons plus support. These include the former tribal levies, and are largely regional in character. Many have little or no real military training and active full time active manning, however, Iran has used the Basij to provide local security ever since the popular riots of 1994. It called up over 100,000 men in 19 regions in September 1994, and began far more extensive training for riot control and internal security missions. It also introduced a formal rank structure, and a more conventional system of command and discipline, and created specialized Ashura battalions for internal security missions. Some reports indicate that 36 of these battalions were established in 1994. The primary mission of the Basij now seems to be internal security, monitoring the activities of Iranian citizens, acting as replacements for the military services, and serving as a static militia force tied to local defense missions.
Iran Military Guide at Globalsecurity.org
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 20 2005 4:08 utc | 19
Iraq threatens Iran with military action as tensions flare
Iraq threatens Iran with military action as tensions flare
Friday 17th June, 2005
Fears are emerging in the Middle East of the prospect of military conflict between Iraq and Iran.
Friday’s front page story in the Gulf News, the widest circulating English newspaper in the region, says tensions between Iran and Iraq have escalated in recent weeks.
The newspaper says threats of military action have been made, attributing its source to a senior member of Iraq’s security forces.
General Nazim Mohammad, chief of Iraq’s Border Police in Muntheria, told Gulf News in an interview at his headquarters, on the Iraq-Iran frontier, his forces had come under small arms fire from Iran. Iranian troops had also fired mortars which exploded on Iraqi soil, he said.
American officers confirmed there had been mortar strikes, which they said appeared to hit no-man’s land between Iraqi and Iranian lines.
When contacted, Laith Kubba, spokesman for the Iraqi Government, told the newspaper, “I don’t have any information on this. But these could be smuggling groups which are usually armed. This is not the first time it has happened.”
Iranian officials and media, however, cast doubt on the claim. Mosib Nuaimi, Editor-in-Chief of Al Wesaq newspaper, told Gulf News from Iran: “How can mortar shells fall without anyone seeing them? After the recent explosions in the Iranian city of Ahvaz, security has been boosted. But I haven’t heard of any tension on the border.”
According to Gen Nazim, however, he and other Iraqi officials were sent by the Ministry of Interior to a meeting with Iranian authorities recently.
“I told the Iranians, mortars from the Iranian side are often being fired on the Iraqi side. I have ordered my soldiers, if Iranian soldiers come close to us, we will open fire directly. If I capture your soldiers, I told them, I will parade them on TV in front of the entire world,” he told Gulf News.
Gen Nazim, who is believed to be well respected by U.S. forces, said his men had arrested several Iranians involved in sabotage.
“We captured three men and there is proof they blew up oil pipelines near Nuft Khaneh under the orders of Iranian intelligence officers,” he said. “They had people working with them in Baquba too.”
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jun 20 2005 5:47 utc | 20
http://en.rian.ru/world/20050616/40535701.html
and deep background:
http://www.cacianalyst.org/view_article.php?articleid=1092
and way-cool reverse-surfing find:
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2005w24/thread.htm
Posted by: tante aime | Jun 20 2005 6:29 utc | 21
And some people here think I’m too much of a pessimist. Ha!
@Mary: “these people” think of living here, in a “US of A” (I use the term loosely now, for I’m not taking break up off the table) that will look much like a cross between Putin’s Russia and Argentine or Brazil.
As long as a solid 30% fascists + 10%/20% fraidy cats remain the paradigm of the US population, “these people” will remain in charge.
They remained in charge in Spain for 50 years. Yes history moves faster today, but not that fast.
The trappings may remain, but basically democracy — at least at the top — is dead, has been dead since 2000, in this country.
When I talk about “Fall” and “Collapse” of the US I don’t mean MAD MAX, I mean a USSR to today’s Russia collapse scenario.
That, we will see within the next 5 years.
But will it harm “these people”? No more than the crumbling of the USSR really harmed the KGB and the Nomenklatura as a whole.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 20 2005 6:35 utc | 22
I wish to add a PS. Posted by: Lupin | Jun 20 2005 6:42 utc | 23
I see this assumption all the time (esp. on DKos) that if, somehow, we can defeat Bush/Cheney etc., things will be, in effect, all right again. Back to the 90s: peace, prosperity and worldwide US worship.
NO THEY WILL NOT.
@Lupin
You’re not alone in that view. The Democrats are just as bad, it’s simply a measure of degree. The whole political system has been subverted and corrupted. The Constitution is considered by the elites to be a worthless historical rag and ‘The Rule of Law’, don’t make me laugh (bitter sarcasm).
The USofA ceased to be a true Democracy long before 2000 …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 20 2005 6:49 utc | 24
Direct link to Scott Ritter’s yesterday article The US war with Iran has already begun
America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.
Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone’s heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran – an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.
Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.
We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.
Seymor Hersh’s January piece on the Iran plans: THE COMING WARS
“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”
Invading Iran from Azerbaijan makes a lot more sense since it’s easier to go to Tehran – well, still not a cakewalk. But shipping 50.000 frontline troops there can’t be done in a few hours, so the surprise effect will be lost and everyone on the planet would soon see something’s going on there.
And of course Azerbaijan is awfully close to Turkey and Russia, both able to seriously mess with the war. I mean, Russia would be VERY pissed off if a land invasion of what they want as a client-state was launched from a former Soviet Republic.
Then, going to Tehran won’t be enough to overhtrow the regime, And will surely not be sufficient to wipe out their nuclear abilities.
Last but not least, taking the bulk of the US Army out of Iraq is suicidal – Sunni guerrillas and possibly Sadr would have a field day. Not to mention that the border would then be open to an Iranian invasion, and given the size of their army, they’d probably send a sizable force straight to Basra and Baghdad, which couldn’t be opposed – what with the USAF bombing Tehran. The bottome-line is that the core of the fighting Army would soon be stuck in NE Iran, the only supplies coming from Kurdistan and Azerbaijan, with maybe Turkey ready to let the Army come throught when defeated and withdrawing.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jun 20 2005 8:26 utc | 26
Billmon slams one way out of the ballpark and hits a bullseye. Great, wonderful, desperately needed and much appreciated.
Wolf DeVoon
The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.
CIA chief has ‘excellent idea’ where bin Laden is
NEW YORK (AP) — The director of the CIA says he has an “excellent idea” where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the United States’ respect for sovereign nations makes it more difficult to capture the al Qaeda chief.
In an interview with Time for the magazine’s June 27 issue, Porter Goss was asked about the progress of the hunt for bin Laden.
“When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you’re dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play,” Goss said. “We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways.”
Asked whether that meant he knew where bin Laden is, Goss responded: “I have an excellent idea where he is. What’s the next question?”
CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER
I’ll start with you, Congressman Weldon. Porter Goss, the CIA director, gives an interview to “Time” magazine that’s just coming out today.
Among other things, as far as the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden, he says this: “I have an excellent idea of where he is,” though he refuses to provide details.
Do you have an excellent idea of where Osama Bin Laden is?
REP. CURT WELDON (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, Wolf, not right now I don’t. But I have given three specific instances to the CIA, two to Porter Goss and one to George Tenet over the past two years. I’m confident that I know for sure he’s been in and out of Iran, where Ayatollah Khomenei has been protecting him with his Revolutionary Guard.
Two years ago, he was in the southern town of Ladis (ph), ten kilometers inside the Pakistan border. I also know that earlier this year, he had a meeting with al-Zarqawi in Tehran. His whereabouts right now, no, I do not know.
BLITZER: How can you be so confident of that when the CIA says they’re not confident of that? They dismiss it.
WELDON: Two years ago, the CIA was totally dismissing that bin Laden would be in Iran. But if you look at the recent comments coming out of both the CIA and some of our military generals in theater, they’re now acknowledging the same thing that I’ve been saying — that in fact, he’s been in and out of Iran. No one can prove it exactly until we capture him.
But you asked my opinion. My opinion is he’s been in and out of Iran several times over the past several years.
So, there’s (something about) Mary’s post that calls into question, just what is the endgame the “elite,aristocracy,corportists,etc” are pulling out all the stops to achieve, and by the way, who the fuck are these people? If they actually exist, and have such preeminent power to hold both political parties beholden to their desire, and yet they themselves remain occult and high atop the pyamid, setting the agenda, unbeknownst to the rest of humanity — and yet still somehow maintain subservience to their desire.
And Mary, while this too bothers me, I’m pretty sure there is no plan, space colonies notwithstanding, for an endgame suited to future needs. For what the driving force here is not necessarily encaptulated within an individual, or personalities, but an idea. An idea grounded in the basic diminsions of human survival a.k.a. the human social dimension as it applies to survival. And this idea is a modality that has been refined, up to the present, as a way of survival in a world that has (through all its technology) been shorn of its moorings to the familiar world of, as Husserl would say, “the things themselves” of human experience. We now live in a world of coveyer belt wants, needs, and desires — manufactured and marketed in a neverending neologistic frenzy where up is down, today is forever, and freedom is my way or the highway. The problem here is that everybody, EVERYBODY, is compelled, in order to survive to assume their own particular place in this order of things, and by assuming their place, the whole scheme marches forward.
So the whole ball of wax appears predicated on ancient survival instinct that has, through its own evolving mechanisms of ever greater survive-ability is destroying its own response-ability in relation to the logical conclusion of its own action. Thus power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutly — in ways small and large.
Posted by: anna missed | Jun 20 2005 9:58 utc | 29
Am I to take that last analysis A-missed (5:58AM) to mean that you have decided there is no guiding intelligence here except for a mass lemming-like popular movement toward…insanity?
I see your point, that it is difficult to make independent moves against the tide, but I have to side with Mary in her suspicion that there is some hidden power driving this suicidal rush. By the way, and for what it’s worth, it has been suggested that Tasmania is the selected final refuge for the perps after they have finished destroying the rest of mankind. I have not seen the invitation list yet; guess I’m not on it.
Posted by: rapt | Jun 20 2005 13:55 utc | 30
Rapt: They’ve shown again and again they’re bad and quite inept. There’s just no way a bunch of fat lazy billionaires and their enablers could survive after a massive wipe-out of mankind. They’ll die with the rest of us if it were to happen. They can delude themselves they’re semi-gods, but ultimately billionaires are just a complete waste of carbon.
Beside, Tasmania looks like a weird pick to me. The place surely isn’t prone to autarcy, and the depletion of ozone-layer is quite bad there around, which would mean a massive flow of nasty cancer-inducing rays.
Anna Missed: Why do you think they’re hidden and unknown? Personally, I’d out every single billionaire on the planet in a hit-list, and I’d end up with a very high accuracy ratio of despicable scheming scumbags. Of course this should be extended far beyond if you want to target the whole lot of schemers, but my guess is that Fortune500 and such lists are a good way of rounding up a good deal of the unusual suspects.
B: Osama meeting Zarqawi in Tehran? Right. When Zarqawi is suspected to be the one bombing Shias and Shiite holy places? That makes much sense indeed.
Either Goss was part of a new Big Lie or he meant *Pakistan* but simply couldn’t be allowed to tell it and keep his office – he would be patrolling Ramadi the next week if he openly stated that our good buddies are actually sheltering Mr. Bad Guy.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jun 20 2005 14:16 utc | 31
D. Estulin’s report(s) on the Bilderberger meeting (some of the Elites..) seem to show that decisions and opinions about a new US (Iraq) – Iran war were mixed, confused. I don’t know whether one should trust these reports, it is just a lot of gossip. Nevertheless, pretty much what one would expect, rings true, and shows that Elite meetings are attended by opinionated ignoramuses, by powerful movers with an agenda (e.g. Perle), by people with great expertise in a narrow area, etc., pretty much like in any big meeting.
Even there, there are no Grand Plans and Masterful Decisions, but a slow swell of manipulation, rallying opinions, dissident voices that fold, etc. Little areas of agreement emerge (e.g. Merkel next in Germany, say), but the main aim is to meet face to face and gather useful information, impressions, allies for one’s cause or side, etc.
Davos, I know (Billmon posted about that at some point, I don’t remember exactly) is even sloppier – here we used to get all the meetings on local TV and plenty reporting in the local news, including articles and cartoons by odd-bods such as the cartoonist Chapatte.
Onlinejournal
Chapatte – just for fun
I still claim that nothing will happen re. Iran and hope I am right.
Mary asked “Where?” – Australia? (I wrote that before reading rapt, a few posts above… though I agree with Lupin too, the US is fine..)
Finally: the Democrats might possibly be worse than the Rs.
Posted by: Noisette | Jun 20 2005 15:04 utc | 32
The Dems don’t have the discipline to beat the repugs at their own game. One alternative that occurs to me is to come clean on all the bribery etc. but … many (most?) Dems are too entrenched in the bribery game to give it up now.
Posted by: rapt | Jun 20 2005 15:47 utc | 33
@Mary
Thank you for raising the key question, and allow me to re-pose it:
From whose perspective does this madness make sense? (and I do not mean make sense to me, or you) The word imagination will be easily misunderstood here, but we do need to use our knowledge and imagination to figure out what sort of logic and context sets these events in motion. If we are to make a change, it will not be by any sort of Schwarzenegger/Rambo heroics (intellectual or otherwise), but only by some variation on “stinging the horse”.
Imagine that we are like flies to the horse rider – (is it so hard?) – easily crushed but also capable of making the entire ride unpalatable. We will not pull the reins, but the rider may care very much about how pleasant the ride feels. Unfortunately for us, the riders have already been working to solve the fly problem.
But, along with Mary, let us ask this question: what if the riders could be assured that smashing the horse flies would only ensure them a house full of hornets and fire ants?
That is a valuable question to consider. Not flattering. Just valuable.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 20 2005 16:16 utc | 34
Ten divisions of Iraqis invading Iran? I don’t think even the neocons believe that. What they really mean is nine US divisions and a nominal Iraqi division so that they can say the invasion is a “coalition” effort, just like the invasion of Iraq. And if it’s a “joint effort” then the neocons can pretend that they’re invading Iran for the benefit of the wonderful people of Iraq that we’ve always had such a close relationship with. After all, everything we do is for them. We invade Iraq — purely for the benefit of the Iraqi people. We invade Iran — purely for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The Iraqis have never known such selfless friendship.
BTW, it’s nice to see Billmon — uniquely — leading the way in getting away from the ridiculous misnomer, “Bush Administration,” in which the gang is named after its affably buffoonish frontman; the guy who spends most of his day out riding a bicycle. “Cheney Administration” is much closer to the truth. Although he’s mainly the foreign policy half of the team. Even more accurate would be, “Rove/Cheney Cooperative.”
Posted by: Julian | Jun 20 2005 16:30 utc | 35
citizen,
that is a great way of looking at it. I like it a lot and Bernhard’s subtitle of this site takes on a new meaning.
Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 20 2005 17:10 utc | 36
@dos
lol.
“Yes, I’ve seen you around before. I’m tabanus puntifer, and you are?…”
Posted by: citizen | Jun 20 2005 17:55 utc | 37
tho everything seems to point to some form of attack on iran & accepting that scott ritter is correct (which he has been for some time) – that the attack has already begun in some form or other – i just cannot see the empire enacting their own elimination which an attack on iran would amount to
the american armed forces are incapable of fighting a war without disproportionate amounts of firepower – they are not the army they pretend to be as stan goff points out repeatedly
they’re all very well with wolf blitzer but when confronted with a people that will fight back they fall apart
they are losing catastrophically in iraq. considerably worse than vietnam where they could at least hold areas of land for some time. here they are completely incapable except for the green zone & its imitators elsewhere in iraq but even there they are not safe – & they grow less & less safe
they are murdering & bombarding a people to hell – but the quotidian evidence is that the resistance not only grows but it widens its areas & populations of support & that is an implacable reality that will accelerate considerably
& in real terms, in military terms – the iraquis have only just begun to consolidate & i’d argue that in a relative situation it is very much like vietnam in that sense. the formation of more considered attacks by the resistance on the green zone(s) are just a question of time
to then, in any form attack iran – even by proxy through the israelis would be suicidal in every sense – perhaps it would create a rationale for the draft – but widening the war – would be sending those troops into a meat grinder
even enfeebled syria would give those forces a beating they do not expect
as usual – there is deeply repellant & racist notions about the ignorance of the other – that these people do not possess the strategic intelligence they teach at west point & citadel or down georgetown university way – & this belief will be their undoing
because the poor learn their lessons very quickly. they adapt. they are flexible. they can transform situations with clarity. theirs after all is the propoganda of deed
the us forces are obliged to do what they are doing – actions which are not military but murderous & criminal in the same way that the german armies in the east – in the beginning – conducted. not military – hidden under a term police action – but in reality mass murder carried out in the most casual way – a village here, a school there, this community, that community & that is exactly what the americans are doing
& they are failing
do they really think they are capable of winning a war with the persians – that they could take tehran – it is so savagely surrealist in its pretentions – i do not think it will leave the special masturbation & military theory rooms – conceived by the cheney bush junta
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 20 2005 20:48 utc | 39
Ceratopogonidae. Family of midges So is Bush a mental Ceratopogonidae?…lol
In all seriousness, last month I went to a party in downtown Seattle, WA: a friend has her own arts/ poetry magazine thingy. A “the new issue’s out” party. Michael Parenti was there, and we talked a bit. He said he thought all the talk from the intellectual Left about how “stupid” Dubya is is missing the point. I
paraphrase Parenti: “He’s fucking you up one side and down the other and
getting away with it and you call that stupid?” Whatta y’all think about that?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 20 2005 21:06 utc | 40
Is Bush the fornicator or just a beard, a congenial host for the real mofo’s?
Posted by: gmac | Jun 20 2005 23:07 utc | 41
Duncan Black today:
No matter what the merits (or lack of) or realities of Goss’s statement, it’s 180 degree turn from the big swinging dick myth that the media has perpetuated about Bush’s tough war on terror. It’s at odds with Bush’s promise to get Osama “dead or alive.” It’s at odds with the entire Bush Doctrine, at least iterations 1-8 of the Bush Doctrine.
This form of criticism, in which dissent thinks itself empowered by exposure of the inconsistencies of Bush’s toughness, is just stupid, even if intended only to momentarily reveal failures of the Bush admin.
The “moderate liberals” must abandon the “we could do the same thing better than” in the hopes of winning the mythical “centrist” vote. No wonder Bush kicks their ass.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 20 2005 23:23 utc | 42
There’s a quality of atrios’ writing, a puerile excitement for success, reminding me of the enthusiasm of a ten year old girl at her 10 cent lemonade stand, overstimulated by the possibilities of capitalism and power.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 20 2005 23:31 utc | 43