Thursday, March 30, 2006
More thoughts on Kevin Phillips vis. a vie Iraq War
Here's a quote from Mr. Phillips' latest book, American Theocracy:
Defining American Petro-Imperialism
So today, after a few weeks of serious allegations of massacres on the part of U.S. soilders and more reports on gays and other minority groups being tortured to death with power-drill wielding deathsquads, I think that the best means of doing our part as a reponsible and responsive citizens lies in addressing why we are there.
First, I will yield nothing except acknowledgement (and contempt) for those who believe our actions in Iraq have something to do with 1. their religious text being completely right, 2. a conflict with the forces of evil a la the Left Behind series, 3. a quest to bring the 'good news' to those backward mohammadeans. They are about 35 - 45% of the electorate (and every one of the dumb motherfuckers votes), but they are not accessible to rational arguements so I will ignore them for now.
Secondly, the WMD explanation. I'd argue that this was more of a means to 'sell' the war to that other 10% than an actual motive force within the administration. Since we found none, and those of us who consume media outside of the corporate/state-run propaganda machines knew full well that they were never going to find any. O.K. that's not completely true. I heard over a hundred voices from Hans Blix, to Scott Ritter, to Tariq Ali - yet somewhere in the back of my mind I still thought that the neo-cons must know something I don't and that some small stash of chemical weapons might be found somewhere. Who could believe that they would just roll on into a country based on an outright lie? Yet now, we have the hindsight (and a shitload of articles from Rolling Stone, to the NYT, to the Downing Street Memos) to realize that, in fact, Bush rolled the dice on his claims of WMD - and the shooter needed snake-eyes.
But they couldn't lay off the WMD, cuz that's just the greatest fucking way to combine 'September the 11th' with 'Saddam Hussein.' One can read their talking points, and one can read between the lines.
Regardless, the lack of any said weapons further erodes our continued presence there.
Some folks talk about 'building democracy', but that's just childish. When in the history of any major power, has a victorious army set about invoking a democracy? Some dumbasses will bring up Japan and the Marshall Plan - yep, pretending the emperor had nothing to do with any war crimes and then using the population's loyalty to royalty while their island served as our 'super aircraft carrier in the pacific.' Yet that's just a bullshit comparison to begin with. What's happening in Iraq was a much more lop-sided competition of militarys and economies. All those years of sactions had Iraq with the weakest military in the middle east (of those larger than a postage stamp) and it took every ounce of brutality he and his boys had to just keep down the popular uprising. A better comparison for U.S. policy would be Indonesia or our proxy involvement in Central and South America over the last hundred years. Unfortuantely, most of the neo-cons are either ignorant or purposefully mute on these comparisions.
If we were really planning on 'planting the seeds of democracy', why did we not place enough troops to even come close to providing security? Why did we guard the Ministry of Oil while watching their museums and every other ministry building gutted by looters? Is that why they disbanded the Iraqi military and de-baathified? To make sure that everyone who had any sort of a successful life under Saddam would have nothing now - except a grudge and some automatic weapons? Why did Paul Bremer make damn sure that laws violating a man's right to organize into unions were kept on the books, when organized labor is such an obvious means of democratizing a population and working to overcome racial differences with the shared interests of their class? We know that the U.S. military is spending shitloads of our money to influence their press, and so the fact that said press continues to play up sectarian differences rather than downplay them - Every motherfucking colonizer knows that the secret to success be 'divide and conquer.'
There are those who feel that Israel had something to do with the calculus to invade Iraq. Aside from the racist shitheads who think every jew working in the New York got a phone call advising them to take some time off on September 10th, I don't see much logic in this one. I'd say it was more along the lines of the WMD tack. An invasion would please many in the pro-Israel lobby, but aside from telling them whatever was necessary to get a bit more support and donations I doubt they gave this angle too much thought.
So that only leaves this administrations first arguement, when they cutely proposed Operation: Iraqi Liberation (Karl Rove made them change it - but I'm sure he still thought it was a real zinger.)
[At this point Aurelius must pause to go to work. Like most Americans, his job requires transportation that consumes at least 2-3 gallons of gas per day. I'll continue this ramble on the other side.]
Defining American Petro-Imperialism
He proceeds this statement with this oft-echoed sentiment, ". . . Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath . . . you can't ask for better than that."
Old-fashioned colonialists, regal and unembarrassed, took physical control of territories, sent in ostrich-plumed governors, minted coins, and printed local postage stamps on which kings or queens gazed proudly over scenes of natives cutting cocoa pods or harvesting tea. By contrast, petro-imperialism - the key aspect of which is the U.S. military's transformation into a global oil-protection force - puts up a democratic facade, emphasizes freedom of the seas (or pipeline routes), and seeks to secure, protect, drill, and ship oil, not administer everyday affairs. Still, the way the United States has begun to organize its national security and military posture around oil is hardly new in spirit, albeit unprecedented in scope. (p. 78)
So today, after a few weeks of serious allegations of massacres on the part of U.S. soilders and more reports on gays and other minority groups being tortured to death with power-drill wielding deathsquads, I think that the best means of doing our part as a reponsible and responsive citizens lies in addressing why we are there.
First, I will yield nothing except acknowledgement (and contempt) for those who believe our actions in Iraq have something to do with 1. their religious text being completely right, 2. a conflict with the forces of evil a la the Left Behind series, 3. a quest to bring the 'good news' to those backward mohammadeans. They are about 35 - 45% of the electorate (and every one of the dumb motherfuckers votes), but they are not accessible to rational arguements so I will ignore them for now.
Secondly, the WMD explanation. I'd argue that this was more of a means to 'sell' the war to that other 10% than an actual motive force within the administration. Since we found none, and those of us who consume media outside of the corporate/state-run propaganda machines knew full well that they were never going to find any. O.K. that's not completely true. I heard over a hundred voices from Hans Blix, to Scott Ritter, to Tariq Ali - yet somewhere in the back of my mind I still thought that the neo-cons must know something I don't and that some small stash of chemical weapons might be found somewhere. Who could believe that they would just roll on into a country based on an outright lie? Yet now, we have the hindsight (and a shitload of articles from Rolling Stone, to the NYT, to the Downing Street Memos) to realize that, in fact, Bush rolled the dice on his claims of WMD - and the shooter needed snake-eyes.
But they couldn't lay off the WMD, cuz that's just the greatest fucking way to combine 'September the 11th' with 'Saddam Hussein.' One can read their talking points, and one can read between the lines.
Regardless, the lack of any said weapons further erodes our continued presence there.
Some folks talk about 'building democracy', but that's just childish. When in the history of any major power, has a victorious army set about invoking a democracy? Some dumbasses will bring up Japan and the Marshall Plan - yep, pretending the emperor had nothing to do with any war crimes and then using the population's loyalty to royalty while their island served as our 'super aircraft carrier in the pacific.' Yet that's just a bullshit comparison to begin with. What's happening in Iraq was a much more lop-sided competition of militarys and economies. All those years of sactions had Iraq with the weakest military in the middle east (of those larger than a postage stamp) and it took every ounce of brutality he and his boys had to just keep down the popular uprising. A better comparison for U.S. policy would be Indonesia or our proxy involvement in Central and South America over the last hundred years. Unfortuantely, most of the neo-cons are either ignorant or purposefully mute on these comparisions.
If we were really planning on 'planting the seeds of democracy', why did we not place enough troops to even come close to providing security? Why did we guard the Ministry of Oil while watching their museums and every other ministry building gutted by looters? Is that why they disbanded the Iraqi military and de-baathified? To make sure that everyone who had any sort of a successful life under Saddam would have nothing now - except a grudge and some automatic weapons? Why did Paul Bremer make damn sure that laws violating a man's right to organize into unions were kept on the books, when organized labor is such an obvious means of democratizing a population and working to overcome racial differences with the shared interests of their class? We know that the U.S. military is spending shitloads of our money to influence their press, and so the fact that said press continues to play up sectarian differences rather than downplay them - Every motherfucking colonizer knows that the secret to success be 'divide and conquer.'
There are those who feel that Israel had something to do with the calculus to invade Iraq. Aside from the racist shitheads who think every jew working in the New York got a phone call advising them to take some time off on September 10th, I don't see much logic in this one. I'd say it was more along the lines of the WMD tack. An invasion would please many in the pro-Israel lobby, but aside from telling them whatever was necessary to get a bit more support and donations I doubt they gave this angle too much thought.
So that only leaves this administrations first arguement, when they cutely proposed Operation: Iraqi Liberation (Karl Rove made them change it - but I'm sure he still thought it was a real zinger.)
[At this point Aurelius must pause to go to work. Like most Americans, his job requires transportation that consumes at least 2-3 gallons of gas per day. I'll continue this ramble on the other side.]
Comments:
<< Home
As I was going to say before my DSL decided to take a 15 minute break... The quality of blogs on Blog Mad continues to go down. Anyone who mentiones Amrerican Idol gets a thumbs down from me. Love that I can rate them like that for talking about stupid shit. Yes, you do have to be patient to actually find a blog worth reading. But there are many out there.
they lied...from beginning to right now..they lied..forest gump(bush) wanted to show daddy he could do what he failed to do(because he was smart enough to know once in...can't get out)and because he is a fucking moron and doesn't know sicem from come here....makes me crazy
I keep nodding in an agreement all the way, thus thinking if there is any point to go on reading. You write too much like I would, if I only knew how. It might be due to my adventures in the American right wing sites the past few weeks. This is almost like coming home. Well, I gotta go to sack now.
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: Friday, March 31, 2006 5:14:00 AM
: Friday, March 31, 2006 5:14:00 AM<< Home
