Friday, January 06, 2006

Saddam's Iraq Trained Terrorists

But there wasn't any connection between Saddam and terror! There CAN'T have been, because that would make Chimpy McBushitlerburton on the right side of history, which would be intolerable.

4 comments:

mythago said...

So if we did the right thing for bogus reasons, even if we completely screwed up the aftermath of doing the right thing, all's well?

flint cordoroy said...

It should be noted Saddam only began such operations after over five years of sanctions and so fourth. It would have been obvious to anyone leading Iraq that Team Bush had designs to make Iraq a colony of U.S. Contractors.

I'd hope to see the weekly standard lend equal vigor to reporting on the goon squads the U.S. had trained and backed in Latin America. That worked out unwell.

mythago said...

We hardly had to invade Iraq to make it contractor heaven--Halliburton just could have given him an honorary appointment and a cut.

flint cordoroy said...

It is interesting that Nixon played the Soviets and Chinese against each other, despite them both being nominally communist nations. Perhaps this insight would have worked in the 1950s with Vietnam. But on the domestic front politicians gain more points for proclaiming opposition to Communism.

The Communists in Vietnam were patriots fighting to get rid of the French. I doubt they would have appreciated the Chinese replacing the French. The United States dissuaded elections in the 1950s for expectations Ho Chi Minh would win. A diplomatic solution of fortifying a democratic(Ho Chi Minh) Viet Nam against China and the Soviets surely would have cost less than the 297 million a year Laird laments the Ford administration discontinued granting South Viet Nam. And most of the other money and lives spent in the conflict.

He states our goal with Viet Nam was to pursue cold war goals, as opposed to our Iraq goal which is to promote democracy. This is a fallacy. At best our Iraq goal is to oppose Jihadism. I'm not sure promoting Democracy is a good idea for that aim, as most of the people Saddam was repressing were conservative muslims. The reason there weren't massive amounts of suicide bombings in Iraq while Saddam was there is because Saddam kicked the shit out of everyone. We won't be able to accomplish the same without getting our hands to dirty. Perhaps it would have been better to "Deputize" Saddam Hussein. Put him on a leash, draw a line against Iran. It is too late now though, and I am convinced that within a week of the U.S. leaving there will be massive terrorist uprisings in Iraq and perhaps a civil war or coup. This is assuming they don't use their democracy to elect Religious Right Wing extremists. We all know how campaigning works. The religious right in Iraq will galvanize people the same way the religious right does here. Especially once their economy picks up enough for everyone to watch TV. Cuz their family values are like ours, only more.


Interestingly enough the radical Islam mess that is Iran wouldn't have happened if our CIA and the British intelligence hadn't nominated The Shah to replace the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq. Mossadeq's offense was trying to reform Iran into a secular nation using the methods which would have made Iran nearly as Socialistic as our Western European allies Britain, France, and West Germany.

One cannot help but wonder if the intellectual basis of U.S. economic and foreign policy(both sides of the political spectrum) would, if all the books our experts study in college were distilled into a single entity, be represented by Homer Simpson. It's as though hyperspecialization conditions people to think in terms of slogans and the process of advancing to positions of influence winnows out people with the ability to think and observe. Does anyone doubt that if the American Revolution occured today it would be labelled a socialist plot of the Colonists to redistribut the Northwest Territories to themselves? We use economic paradigms that became obsolete the moment steam engines became commercially viable
as the basis for most political debate and foreign policy cheerleading.

I'd like to believe Globalism will work. But it won't. It will leave more craftsmen, farmers, and local and regional businessmen and laborers downsized than it will give jobs in retail and advertising and government. And before that happens we will find that we don't have enough resources to make it work without conversion and distribution processes so massive and complicated they require capital only available through massive government spending and monopolist favor peddling.
well gee, its for the free market so it must be ok..


There is more immediate money in Globalism collected into narrower concentrations than there would be collected by the more prudent policies of protectionism and anti-monopolism. This makes it easier to spend money on campaigning. Campaigning is essentially lying or misleading and defending yourself against the oppositions lying and misleading. Whichever candidate spends the most money on campaigning is therefore the most dishonest candidate. We tune out campaign slogans and rhetoric because it is repeated so often, therefore it is repeated more often, therefore whoever repeats it most often wins. The financial windfalls of outsourcing American manufacturing or obtaining a giant government contract is channeled into giving people with degrees in economics and political scientists grants to fabricate credibility. In a hyperspecialized society advancement or peace of mind or confidence requires committing reality to its representation by this evidence. You can pay people to make anything seem to make sense. They're good at it and they make a lot of money doing it.


But in the end that is ok. Most of us have no influence on policy. The big money is in the system and we must all take what opportunities we can while we can. A small portion of us will die in the strife, but in the end this is more profitable and exciting than building less dramatic systems.

Hopefully the Chinese won't sucker punch us once we owe them too much money. Before long they will have the capital to outproduce any advanced weaponry and technology we can concieve of. They already have the engineers. Its important for us to use our remaining wealth to dictate policy in the middle east before they dictate policy in the middle East once as many of them have raised their quality of living to U.S. standards and are driving as many cars as us.

And that's how our Iraqi interests make sense. Based on a commitment to a lot of other things that don't make sense in the long term and trying to play catch up with past mistakes. What I mean is, at least it generates a lot of jobs for now.