Fans of the novel Catch-22 recognize the character Milo Minderbinder as the one who specialized in the black market in illegal goods of World War II; trading goods amorally, with the "enemy" and allies equally; whose first loyalty was to making a buck, regardless of which side was making the deal, or even which product provided the profit. This seems to be the most appropriate metaphor with which to frame the context for the grand larceny being committed, IMO, under the auspices of the self-styled "Iraq Study Group."
The options in Iraq are obvious even to beginning students of chess--the military situation in Iraq is at a stalemate. (Unless W. decides to drop nuclear weapons on insurgents and masses of more-or-less innocent civilians). But the commercial media reports also ignore (Jump!)
the glaringly obvious, multi-layered conflicts of interest apparant from having James A. Baker III involved with any advice to the government at all. (NB: Kos diarists ClammyC and Cogitator have commented on various aspects of the Baker Conflicts earlier this month). Many of these Baker conflicts are well-documented and widely-reported, so that even an 8th grader with the skill to Google-search would be able to do some rudimentary analysis and conclude that Baker has glaring conflicts. Let's try to highlight a few. The common theme, IMO, is that Baker is looking out for Number One, namley his family-owned businesses. He would side with Saudi interests just as quicky as US interests, if he saw a buck in it. (Skeptics who think that a harsh judgement should look to the website about the Baker Institute at Rice University, and note that Saudi Arabian is a major funding country for this "academic" enterprise).
First conflict: The Carlyle Group. The source of this information is the book House of Bush; House of Saud by Craig Unger (Scribner, New York; 2004). Unger paints a little background. The Carlyle Group, the private equity firm specializing in defense stocks, was begun with a few founding members worth $553 million to $800 million EACH! Dealmaker Fred Malek brings into the group some politically-connected members: Bush family members, James Baker III himself, and Dick Darman (p. 160-163).
Some sidelights from this connection: author Craig Unger reminds us that the ersatz Bush "ranch" near Crawford, TX, not far from Waco, is an area particularly rich with KKK history, and that Bush investment Harken Energy had offshore oil rights off Bahrain (p. 123). Unger notes "the golden chain" of Saudi connections at Carlyle involved at least 20 particularly wealthy investors. One clue as to how well they could do: Carlyle Group helped shepard Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal's %580 million investment in Citicorp stock into growing twelvefold by 1998, to $7 billion! (p. 166).
Anyone who owes money on a CitiCard can appreciate that some of the tribute they pay on purchases ends up in Saudi Arabia, where the state religion of Wahabbi-ism preaches some of the most virulent anti-American, anti-Semetic, and anti-Western diatribes. Some of that money probably ends up in the hands of the very jihadists that are anti-thetical to U.S., Israely, and Western interests. This is something not likely to be highlighted by news broadcasts, some funded by CitiCard advertising dollars. Also, media firms borrow dollars for their own expansion from Citibank banking and securities subsidiaries. At the consumer level, the result of this activity may be felt via collection agencies who will begin harassing consumers in debt under the onerous provisions of the recent change in bankruptcy laws. That these connection are not vigorously pointed out during the consumerist orgy of holiday spending, IMO, is another sign of the abandonment of the public interest by the commercial media companies.
If nothing else, these conflicts of interests at least provide a rational basis for the extremely curious wartime president's advice to the public "to continue shopping." Both Thuycidides and Adam Smith would have been equally astounded to hear suchadvice in any council of war!
Not to be outdone in Milo Minderbinder-ness by James Baker III, the Saudis have a series of conflicts-of-interests of their own. With the help of funds raised via Saudi backers, The Carlyle Group bought shares in United Defense Contractors, maker of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, selling 2,000 of them to Saudi Arabia alone, along with tanks (p. 169). Baker, no slouch himself, tries to get the Saudis to give 25 percent of the telephone contract for the country of Saudi Arabia to southern-based SBC Communications, which wouldn't hurt Baker's business connections, nor his Carlyle Group investment either (p. 189).
The Bush family, who do have some slouches, get a taste of Saudi "generosity" by seeing $3.5 million going to Bus-favored charities (p. 200). Proving, possibly, that George W. Bush did NOT sleep through the infamous "Power and Influence" course at Harvard Business School--the course most infused with the political science of Machiavelli. On the election front, some of this power and influence is utilized via Grover Norquist, who has developed a plan to have George W. Bush win over Muslim-American votes as part of his election strategy (p. 201).
The Saudis, meanwhile, pursue their own agenda, giving more than $342 million to mosques in the US, where four out of five are under Wahabbi control (p. 203). And the giving to US mosques is just part of the Saudi campaign since 1975 pourint $70 billion (with a B) into Islamic mosques and related efforts (p. 204).
Nor will the commercial media explain prominently that the potential Saudi investments in the US over the next 20 years will not begin to cover the red ink the US has already incurred by this brutally expensive stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan. From a financial standpoint, for the US, the Iraq war is already a loser. In pure economic terms, if the Iraq war were a stock, the trading desk at the Carlyle Group would have dumped this a long time ago--if it were their own money at risk--rather than taxpayers money.
Nor will the commercial media criticize the ISG's anti-democratic methods. The methods are a carbon-copy of those used by oil companies. See the book The Party's Over by Richard Heinberg (New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, B.C. Canada; 2003) in describing Rockefeller oil interest domestic business practices: predatory pricing, secrecy, industrial espionage, and a program to absorb foreign oil companies. In the case of the Baker report, it would seem that the tried-and-true Blue Ribbon Commission gambit aims to serve as a "tranquilizer dart" to neutralize other competing reports that actually have more legitimacy than Baker's--one from the Pentagon, another from the National Security Council.
Like George W. Bush's antics at the National Press Club roast looking for weapons of mass destruction, the commercial media is now engaged in a new round of armchair generalship, pursuing a pointless exercise of trying to opine on the exact point at which this aggressive invation of Iraq by George W. Bush and the neocons began to go awry. Bo not fall for this blather.
The definitive analysis on this point comed from H.R. McMaster, in the book Dereliction of Duty which searingly criticizes Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson for poor decision-making concerning Vietnam. The point deserves emphasis. That war was lost AT THE INSTANT LBJ made the decision to go in with fewer troops than required. And LBJ made this decision even though there was a war game showing that a compromise-strength strategy would lose. At the time, the "Rostow thesis" was that victory was possible in Vietnam if there were a gradual increase of troops. The war game SIGMA II showed it would flunk. Even when at
the game's conclusion the United States had deployed more than 10 ground combat divisions to Southeast Asia and was comtemplating an amphibious invasion of North Vietnam" (p. 157)
IMO, We have got to stop deliberately ignoring the lessons of Vietnam.