Skip to main content

View Diary: The MIC is not in control (396 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah (10+ / 0-)

    I think Iraq was not the same as everything else.

    Iraq was by Bush and Cheney for the benefit of Bush and Cheney. Non-compete 5 year contracts to Haliburton awarded prior to the start of combat suggest the corruption was in place before the war started.

    Bush and Cheney were horrible corrupt people, and I think they would have been horrible corrupt people without the MIC.

    I'm on a mission! Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:28:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Look I Like You From Your Comments (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, chuckvw, Aspe4

      and I think this diary is wrong. Dumb even. But I can't get upset about it. I say stupid shit all the time and would like folks to give me some leeway.

      But IMHO you can't just say, well Bush and Cheney and all be forgiven on this topic.

    •  Not completely (0+ / 0-)

      Remember: those guys are neocons, and so their foreign policy is based upon lots of aggressive action and overthrowing of governments to remake countries.  Profiting from it doesn't hurt, but even without that they would likely be doing it.

      •  thank you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, orlbucfan

        I studied "US foreign policy after 9/11" in college. They had us reading up on neoconservative thought and on the Bush Doctrine. There is actual logic behind it. I disagree with it fervently, but there's logic.

        For example, the idea behind Iraq was that we establish a "beachhead" of democracy in the region from which we could exert influence. Essentially, neoconservatives were pushing for the movement of the US from more of a hegemony towards more of an empire, away from (already waning) "soft" power in economics and culture towards the use of our (ever growing) "hard power" in an attempt to extend American influence for another century (as in "Project for a New American Century").

        It's based in a mediocre understanding of history that emphasizes military presence, threat of military intervention, etc as causal factors behind the US rise to world power after WWII.

        I see it as a totally immoral philosophy of foreign policy to spend our soldiers' blood and people's treasure in the pursuit of a "continued unipolar moment". I'm still not sure if it's Machiavellian (immoral but effective) or simply idiotic.

        "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." --Ed Abbey

        by progreen on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:47:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a high-risk, high-reward strategy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If successful it could (long-term) lead to an end of the major instability in the Middle East.

          The problem of course is that the likelihood of such success are not that good (especially if you are an idiot and have no plans other than expecting to be welcomed with open arms), plus come at huge costs in the short and medium term in terms of dollars and lives.

          It was ambitious, but as hindsight makes very clear, also foolish.

          •  that's the interesting thing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            When I read the thinking, I thought "Hm. That could work. If I had these same goals (continued US unipolar dominance) and an amorality or ends-justify-the means morality that allowed me to look past the horrific cost in soldiers lives and money, I could see that this might be the only real workable strategy to achieve my goals."

            Then I went out and got arrested with some priests, monks, and rabbis in an act of civil disobedience protesting the war.

            I can see their perspective, but I'll still fight for what I think is right.

            "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." --Ed Abbey

            by progreen on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 11:35:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But it would promote alliances to prevent (0+ / 0-)

              such extreme unipolar dominance.  Russia, India, China potentially even Germany and others eventually would seek to destabilize the unipolar dominance.

              It ignores the fact that our position post WWII was an exceptional condition brought about by the devastation of other major powers.  

              It ignores our own resource depletion.  It ignores how dependent we have become on foreign manufacturing, the just in time inventories, etc.  

              Globalization makes us vulnerable in many new ways.

            •  I guess it's a matter of perspective (0+ / 0-)

              Is killing 500,000 people immoral if it eventually saves millions of lives (and countless political headaches) by creating a stable region?  That seems to have been the gamble taken.  Or in terms that Bush could understand: can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

              I thought it had a chance if they could pull it off in Iraq after what appeared to have been success in Afghanistan.  At the very least a very bad dictator (Saddam) would be out of the way.  But if I had any inkling how bumbling and incompetent that Rumsfeld and the rest really were, I would have been calling for stakes to be driven through their hearts.  Well, the spot where their hearts should be.

              And really, I don't see any unipolar world state existing for very long.  There are always rivalries and others who want more, and they will eventually surpass or undermine the dominant power.  In a world with a peaceful Middle East they would eventually look more to Asia for opportunties to get ahead, taking for granted the actions made by the US to put them in their good position.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site