|
WB: The War Party
Billmon:
Events — from 9/11 on — have moved too fast and pushed us too far towards the clash of civilizations that most sane people dread but the neocons desperately want. The Dems are now just the cadet branch of the War Party. While the party nomenklatura is finally, after three blood years, making dovish noises about the Iraq fiasco, I think their loyalty to Israel will almost certainly snap them back into line during the coming "debate" over war with Iran.
I hope like hell I’m wrong about this, but I don’t think I am. So I guess I’ll just have to accept being labeled a traitor to the cause — or whatever the hardcore partisans are calling it. Sure, why not. They’re certainly free to follow their party over the cliff (we’re all going over it anyway) but I’d at least prefer to do it with my eyes open.
The War Party
2nd anon :
How much do you want to bet me that the whole reason the neocons decided to tack Iran onto their enemies list is because Chalabi never delivered that pipeline to Haifa?
That fits in with the Gangster Capitalist view of the Israelis.
Owl:
But surely China, Russia, and Europe will react – perhaps in some unforseen and very unpleasant way if the US attacks Iran.
For an attack on Iran, the US has to first clear out of Iraq completely – anybody left in Iraq will be a hostage to Iranian missiles.
On point one I agree. One point two, Iran won’t have to do a thing. Iraqi Shia can eliminate the US occupation forces on their own anytime they concert their efforts to do so.
nobts:
Meanwhile the generals you seem to be clutching at are even deeper in the maelstrom than some of the Dems in congress…
I, too, have zero faith in “the generals”, and I don’t want them out of the stable in any case. The ideal thing for them to do would be to publicly resign, one after the other. Less likely than the Demoplicans biting the hand that feeds them. Which has probability approaching the vanishing point.
owl :
One could look at Europe, China, India, Russia as relatively sane adults – what sort of view do they hold toward a J.D. teenager, a junior Shrub – insane Geo.Bush & Co. and the Christian fundamentalist package? I don’t think they particularly want radioactive isotopes from US bombs exploded in Iran to go over their countries. Wind patterns *are* so unpredictable.
Yes. I think this is very important. The US/Israeli Axis is not the “sole” superpower it thinks of itself as.
della rovere:
Owl above is correct; war with Iran is not inevitable; the Democratic leadership may fold (maybe has folded already) as soon as the defense of Israel becomes a full-throated chorus, but there are other players…Russia, and China are two important ones.
Yes again. Says I. Of course I know no more about any of this than the next man in the street. But when it gets this serious, and this obvious, the man in the street’s perspective is the one everyone is reduced to. No one wants to die. Well, maybe the Israelis do.
If Iran is smart, if Russia and China correctly counsel Iran, Iran will keep it’s hands well clear and above the table vis a vis Iraq, and will talk that way too. R&C then make sure that the US/UK/Israel know that they are going up against everyone else that counts on the planet and… US/UK/Israel back down. Just like Khruschev in Cuba.
Where there’s life there’s hope.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Aug 4 2006 13:12 utc | 24
Since Billmon – and by extension MoA – and Gilliard are the 2 bloggers I read the most, even when in holidays, it’s only fitting that I crosspost my opinion just posted on Steve’s site. I don’t think their positions are totally irreconcilable, ultimately, just that Billmon is a necessary insight to cool down feverish hope of major changes if Dems win in Nov. – which as Gilliard says, would still be in my opinion a better result than W keeping control of the country.
I too tend to think both positions are not mutually exclusive and are quite on the money, both of them.
Overall, I think Billmon is right. He has figured out that the core problems of the USA are too deep and too massive to be fixed, which is quite correct since, after all, even with electoral fraud, Bush still went away both times with something like 45% of the votes. The whole political system is rotten, which is a quite obvious fact. Then there’s that other little-acknowledged fact, which is that most of the American people is made up of idiots and bastards, and democracy can’t properly work on the long run with such a people. Not that this problem is purely American, it’s probably shared by pretty much every other country. People will see the error of their ways only when it’ll be too late and the damage can’t be undone anymore, when they’ll be plunging down the cliff.
Therefore I’m with Billmon in that the ultimate fall can’t be averted.
And about Iran, well, I thought that after losing Bosnia and Croatia, Milosevic was done with his antics and knew it. Then he tried the same trick with Kosovo and just destroyed Serbia for several decades. So, I don’t think it’s safe to consider that Iran won’t be attacked. In fact, I’m prone to think that since Bush has begun to fuck up the whole imperium, he may well be the man to pull the trigger on it once and for all, and do something really stupid like bombing Iran and sending the Marines. I mean, if you add Iraq’s invasion, then occupation, and later this Lebanon fiasco, all has been a trainwreck. We know what would wreck things even more and why would it not happen?
But then, I’m not sure pessimism is the only thing to do. Sure, it’s over in the long run, but I still think that it’s possible to alleviate the suffering and problems that will come all along the fall, and that is a good thing to aim for. So, all the progressive, the liberal, the leftist efforts aren’t totally in vain if they can manage to assure that as many people will suffer, sure, but suffer a bit less than if BushCo had full control of the country. So in this way I’m also with Steve, not because I think that incremental liberal progress will assure things will go back to order with time, but because the insane collateral damages caused by the coming fall can be softened a bit, and maybe the extent of the fall itself can be reduced.
And if I may add one thing I forgot to put on my comment at Steve’s, it’s that indeed as some mentioned here, there may be a larger game than just US vs Evildoers going on. In fact, I’m wondering how Russia and China will react, and if they will loosen their position enough to give the impression to Bush he can hope to get away with an attack on Iran under certain circumstances. Pretty much a subtler version of “beef between Iraq and Kuwait is an Iraqi internal affair, US isn’t interested by it”. Basically, I’m wondering if ultimately Russia and China won’t come to the conclusion that the meltdown of US military might in a war against Iran and its subsequent economic collapse aren’t a desirable outcome from their point of view, and if they won’t decide to sacrifice a good chunk of Iran to see it done in a replay of the Sicily expedition.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Aug 4 2006 16:05 utc | 47
Everybody has his “satori” moment, his moment of enlightenment, where all things come clear. It has been easy to see this coming for some time with Billmon — and now it has arrived; first in his Gilliard post, and now here. I would hope that many of the astute people who have been posting comments here on Moon have helped contribut to this.
A few observations:
Of course, no one KNOWS definitively what the future will bring. I think many of the possible scenarios have been well drawn out here.
Amy Goodman and Juan Cole, on DN today, do an excellant job drawing out the regional implications of the widening conflict. And they do it simply and in a way that, if you can get your hysterical wing-nut friend, or relative,to take a brief respite from endless paroxysms of hate, and sit down and listen with you, can really open up space for some real dialogue.
jonku, #16, asks what the worst case scenario could be, whether we could have a true “world war.” Let me amplify a little on that, some of the tensions that exist, and how they can play out.
The danger of war is that it creates rapid, even if insubstantial and unsustainable, changes in established balances of power. These changes lead nations to feel very threatened, and feel that they need to take the initiative themselves, or be overtaken by events. This is how war spreads. Nations are coerced, or feel compelled, to take up sides, even if they would prefer to remain neutral. Some switch sides as the tide turns one way or another. Tensions between the interests of the nation’s ruling elites, and their ruled publics, become greater, resulting in a vicious cycle of repression, increased impoverishment and resentment, eventually destabilizing whole countries through rebellion and coups. All of this is very unpredictable.
We have seen how the war could spread from Iraq and Palestine, to Lebanon now, and then possibly, Syria and Iran. Turkey can be expected to enter the fray in Northern Iraq, selling out the Kurds, but supporting the Americans. This can only destabilize Iraq further, by alientating our one ostensible ally there. We have talked about the possibility of unexpected topplings of friendly regimes: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and even Kuwait. While I think the administration is rather less worried about this possibility than we are, Hizbullah’s success can only embolden the disenfranchised. Afghanistan is a rather large concern. Should it completely destabilize, Pakistan will be left in a suicidal quandary over whether to support American interests or its own. Facing conflict on one border, it will be more susceptible to an advance by India on its other border. We know the danger of that conflict spiraling out of control. Pakistan is also more likely to undergo a coup than our nominally moderate Arab allies.
As the Muslim world finds itself embroiled in an ever-enlarging conflict with The Great Satan, tensions may also heighten in the world’s 2nd and 4th most populous Muslim states, Indonesia and Malaysia, which have heretofore remained undisturbed. Minority Muslim populations throughout Southeast Asia could rise up as we approach a war of the all against the all. Shipping routes to China and Australia could easily be disrupted by terrorists, bringing them into regional frays. China and India could reheat their longstanding border disputes.
Turning our attentions to our hemisphere, we see many areas of instability which could spiral out of control. Cuba is the most obvious. South Florida could find itself in the midst of a covert terror campaign. If the US becomes preoccupied, Colombia, and its US backed repressive government would be extremly vulnerable. But Colombia cannot be allowed to fall, because a government allied to Venezuela’s Chavez would open up the Pacific, and China, to receiving Venezuelan oil exports which currently go to the US. One can easily see the potential for a Pacific war. Batchelet, a US trained puppet posing as a moderate, would be forced to show her true colors by using all the arms we send her. Chile, with one of the world’s most neo-liberalized economies, is seething with class resentments. Any destabilization of that country would also effect US winter food imports. Perhaps, the dark horse here is Mexico, already in roiling turmoil because of a stolen election, and deep class resentments. A coup d’etat there, ushering in an anti-American regime on America’s doorstep would be the greatest possible setback to US foreign policy. Central and South America, our own backyard, would have inadertently slipped from our grasp, while our eyes were focussed elsewhere. Barring a full-scale counterattack of unprecedented brutal dimensions, it would spell the end of American global hegemony — if you can’t weed your own backyard, no one will trust you to weed theirs. Finally, should Britain find itself increasingly beleagered as it is drawn into ever deeper war, and perhaps internal terrorism, Argentina could see this as an opportunity to re-seize the Fawklands, home to one of the largest oil reserves in the world.
Of course, the permutations are infinite, but those are some of the most possible areas of tension which could be destabilized by an ever-enlarging war that can I envision. Is the Bush State Department up to challenges like these? Condi could wear out her extensive shoe collection pretty fast, not to mention the unprecedented drains on global lipstick supplies.
***********************
It never ceases to surprise me that, despite ALL historical evidence, Democrats continue to believe that their party is less war-like then the other one. I agree that they can APPEAR to be less thuggish than the Republicans because they at times rely on more humane strategies,
like starving their adversaries to death. But when the budget comes up for discussion, and the Dems are calling for a public offensive outlay of $415 Million, instead of the $423 Million which the Repubs are calling for, only a sufferer of severe innumeracy, or willful ignorance, can come to the conclusion that one party has even the remotest interest in peace.
This is hardly the first time in history that unmitigated martiality has hid beneath the innocuous looking hat of anti-war sentiments. Nor would it be the first time that rich and venal politicians have mislead a fearful public looking for any sign of hope. I have neither the time nor the inclination to flesh out the historical record here, but I would hope that those among us who are most fearful of current events take some of the precious time they spend agonizing over events to review the historical record. At times like these, a little information, and a healthy scepticism, would keep our — the anti-war movement — ostensible allies fom becoming our worst enemies, and selling out their own best interests for the insubstantial promises of venal and deceitful politicians.
Don’t worry folks, I’m still for Ned Lamont, I love Ned Lamont, I will always be for Ned Lamont, because he is anti-war, which means that he will wage the next war better than those pro-war bozos who botched this one up.
America has always been a war-like and aggressively expansionist country. I assume that everyone on a blog like this has familarized themselves with works like Zinn’s People’s History,” and Smedley Butler’s memoirs, available on the web. No one here should be under any illusions that any of our statesmen have ever been more than lying, armed thugs, out to grab as much filthy lucre as they can get their hands on. This simple fact seems to be too painful — despite the over-whelming documentary evidence — for many to accept, or hold on to.
That understood, the elite do debate tactics for grabbing other’s assets and maintaining control of them. The current debate revolves around whether one would get more, in the end, by slowly strangling wealth out of the hands of others, or, by grabbing as much as one can, as quickly as possible, using shock-and-awe aerial bombardment of others, and putting aside the question of holding on to the spoils until a later date. The idea that twelve or fifteen “neo-cons” have somehow forcibly taken over government policy is ludicrous. While the policies presently being implemented are at the extreme right end of the spectrum of elite opinion, the neo-cons are merely the public face of vast corporate and moneyed interests that prefer their faces are never seen, or associated, with the “dirty business” of foreign policy. Think of it more as a battle between the McDonnell Douglas’ and the Raytheons, against the Cokes, and Proctor-Gambles. The Carlyle boys and Buffetts and Soros’ will ride whichever pony they can, if not both.
These unseen faces control both parties. From their perspective, the feverish and frenetic commenting on liberal blogs, is just the uninteligible work of so many ants on the ground, dragging their scraps of leaf back and forth interminably, yet seemingly without meaning.
That doesn’t mean that they are not scared. The elite live in their own particular state of cossetted terror. But their terror is far removed fom the fears of us liberal bloggers. Their terror is not that some day abortion will become illegal (for the poor), or that cameras might spy on everyone (of the poor), or that jack-booted police might be able to kick down the doors, and disappear (poor) suspected terrorists — no, that is not what they worry about. What they worry about is that one day the hoi-polloi will wise up and see through their game, and stop fighting each other for scraps of the pie, but instead unite and topple their precarious thrones.
And that is because those thrones are really very precarious. While the elite may live in gated-communities and have their own private security forces, they also have supply lines bringing in all the food and services which the rich require. And these supply lines are far more vulnerable than those of the US Army in Baghdad. All that protects these elite from the rest of us is an unwritten contract — that, in exchange for us letting them have every material desire one could ever want, they will give us peace and security and stability and hope for the future and enough food to eat. But, if they screw up, and we don’t get what is promised us in the social contract, and enough of us figure it out and wise up, and come together and start to organize, then the game would be up pretty quickly for the elite. But they can never let the game be seen for what it really is.
So, the game continues, indeed the game must always continue, of distracting the middle-class and poor with divisive social issues, and setting them upon each other. Those who find it hard to let go of their beloved Democratic Party would do well to spend some time at the blog Stop Me Before I Vote Again, which is where Uncle $cam gets his “Ratchet Effect” link from. The book, linked to on the right of the blog, while unfinished, does a far better job than I can of explaining the vagaries of party politics here in America. It is a quick read. Read it. You will discover how political parties divide and distinguish themselves, and why, and you will see clearly how they hook you personally in to believing that your views are correct. You will also begin to understand the underpinnings of the Democratic Party, and see that the conditions which brought about its surprising social welfare and equal rights achievements were anomalous, and comprised but a bief period of the party’s history, and how that liberalizing history does not extend into the present, and why. It could be pretty illuminating for some. Like finally coming to terms with an abusive lover.
*******************
The danger we face today is unique, because America has never lost a real war, and its position of global dominance dictates that it can’t let itself. We did not lose Vietnam. We wanted to make sure that Vietnam would never be a successful developmental model for other independent small states, and we wanted to incorporate the country into our sphere of influence. We suceeded. We pulled troops out because the military was no longer needed to achieve these goals. By bombing the country to smithereens, we assured that the country would not develop, independently or otherwise, for years. But Vietnam was not that risky: there were no resources which we felt we must have.
The current situation is much riskier. We have suceeded in reducing Palestine, Iraq, and now Lebanon, to rubble. But, the task of incorporating them into our sphere of influence becomes progressively more daunting as we build more enemies. This leaves us with two options. Declare victory and leave, hoping to maintain influence by diplomatic means; or, keep moving forward, spreading war and destruction in an ever wider swath. As the area destroyed grows, it puts increasing stress on the propaganda system to preserve the myth of benevolence in the wake of this damage. Costs mount and strains in society mount.
But the elite must plow ahead, because they cannot lose complete control of the Middle East. The goal is complete domination of the region. I’m not so sure that the planners have given this hope up yet. Plow further.
Should they not be able to achieve complete domination, the best they can hope for is a carving of the Middle East up into spheres of influence, acceptable to the great powers, US, EU, Russia, China, and the Middle East itself. The Bush administration does not seem capable of this level of statesmanship. Would Hillary be?
But, let’s not fool ourselves about the stakes involved — they are far higher for the US than WWII. WWII was not our war. Should England have lost, and Germany won, it would have been a little difficult on the ideological system, but we know that all contradictions like that could be worked out. As long as Germany had been stabilized, we would have been happy to pick up doing business with it right where we left off. We might have been short a few rocket scientists, and Germany might have landed on the Moon first, but that’s life.
But this is OUR war. We started it — much against the wishes of the rest of the world. For the US to lose completely, and lose its domination of the Middle East, its shipping lanes and its oil, would spell the end of American global hegemony. The rest of the world might breathe a sigh of relief, but for our elite, this would be anun paralleled disaster. I am certain such an outcome remains completely unthinkable and unacceptable.
Concerning the talk about whether it is the tail wagging the dog or the dog wagging the tail, advocates of both positions seem to agree on the belief that it is only one animal.
Yet, someone, here or on an earlier thread, linked to a column by Charles Krautheimer, in which he admonished Israel that it MUST win its fight, or else it would lose credibility and value to the US.
This points to an intriguing possibility, namely, that the US could save face in this ever-widening debacle by laying the blame on Israel: they are the ones who fucked up.
Of course, a certain level of retrenchment would be called for, and a ton of diplomacy, but this is definitely a promising way in which ever-widening doom is avoided. Blame Israel, cool the aid and arms shipments (for a while), cool the beligerent talk, find a way to at leat semi-integrate Syria back into our sphere of influence with carrots instead of sticks, and find an acceptable way to divide the spoils of Iraq with Iran, as long as it is willing to give up the dream of nuclear weapons.
Oddly enough, the grandaddy of all war criminals, Kissenger, hinted at such a possibility several days ago. The world world would ceertainly breathe easier if some sense were brought to the table. Sadly, it seems to me that a move in this direction would take a flexibility and an adroitness which the Bush administration simply does not possess.
It is hard to pull off the cowboy swagger when you are carrying a hot new load, of your own creation, riding heavily in your back seat.
Posted by: Malooga | Aug 4 2006 19:41 utc | 90
|
