Skip to main content

View Diary: Battle Plan for Iran: The Khuzestan Gambit (90% of Iran's Oil) (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  your response leaves a lot to chew on (none)
    so i'll keep mine brief and focused by highlighting just a few points.

    i repeat, smart people can often do really stupid things, especially if they're arrogant enough.

    balkanization is an time-honored political tactic and an art form when practiced by experts, but if that's what the bushCo is supposedly engineering in iraq, then they're bungling it horribly. yes, you're supposed to play each side against one another, but what bushCo has done is unleash uncontrollable mayhem with no forseeable end. you're supposed to ally yourself with the strongest faction (presumably the one in control), while maintaining their loyalty by keeping their weaker foes on a leash, but what bushCo has done is thoroughly alienate all the factions. and you're not supposed introduce your own forces as a major player, a mistake that was made in vietnam. bushCo's control over events in iraq has all but completely evaporated. i see only stupidity here.

    i never suggested that building a democracy was ever part of their master-plan, nor have i ever believed it, so much of your dissertation is unnecessary. my own theory regarding their original master-plan goes like this: 1) overthrow saddam; 2) quickly install secular capitalist (chalabi) as titular president; 3) cut sweetheart deals regarding oil, money, security and military bases; rinse and repeat with iran. all relatively painless and very attractive to someone arrogant enough to try it, but not very realistic. my question to you therefore is: how is the present chaos a better plan for bushCo than the one i've outlined?

    bushCo is not monolithic; it is a composite entity comprised of many competing interests big and small (including neocons, big oil, private investors, ambitious politicians, coalition members, etc., etc., even including, in a sense, a vengeful american public) who, as all shady players do, would readily abandon the plan or even double-cross any of the other interests as soon as they thought it either more profitable or too costly. that makes formulating, agreeing on, implementing and sticking to any kind of plan very difficult. such plans tend to be very inefficient and can morph quickly from their original shape as each interest continually reappraises their own investment, especially if each interest hides or camoflages part or all of their objectives from the others. it's much more likely for plans to veer off course than hold together.

    a crucial element of the plan requires remaining in a position to control it. a key component of that plan, the american voter (who i don't see as only a passive pawn but an active participant), is poised to remove bushCo from the action if they don't see some kind of profit very quickly over the coming election cycles and i don't think they'll be able to prevent it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site