Here's my first blog entry with that goal in mind, which is not to say that I haven't used this process before. For example, I wrote sometime ago:
"A population shift is now taking place in this country, with a rise of Latinos, and a decline of whites.
"The Latino demographic will, in a decade or two, wield most of the political power in this country, with whites falling precipitously to the back of the electoral bus.
"What's needed to offset this shift is a new power dynamic assuring that whites will continue to assert their will over the political and social landscape. [...]
"How do they preserve their once monopolistic power in the midst of this population shift? Simple. Transfer it to corporations. And this what we're now seeing take place, unabashedly, by the Roberts Supreme Court.
"Corporations, recently raised to the importance, and stature of the individual, can now use their collective power to influence the outcome of elections and the passage of legislation."
From the Rachel Maddow show we find some support for my conclusion, as it's becoming more and more evident that the demographic shift will impact a distribution of power in this country--political and otherwise.
Recently, President Obama signed a compact with Harmid Karzai: "[D]uring an unannounced visit to sign a strategic partnership agreement with President Hamid Karzai that sets the terms for relations after the departure of American troops in 2014. [...]Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
"But Mr. Obama also spoke of an “enduring partnership” with Afghanistan, invoking the agreement, which pledges American help for a decade in developing the Afghan economy and public institutions, though it makes no concrete financial commitments, which Congress would have to authorize each year."
Some have placed the financial commitment somewhere around $2 billion dollars a year, and that's probably a conservative estimate, and doesn't take into account further payouts to the Pakistanis.
Here's where the dots come together: As long as the US is willing to pump billions of dollars into Afghanistan and Pakistan for the purpose of defeating Al-Qaeda, or tamping Taliban insurgency, these two countries will never address our goals.
Where's the incentive to further them, when, to do so, would damage their goal, which is to keep American dollars flooding the two countries?
I can hear someone high up in the Pakistan military remonstrate this way:
"Damn those American's are stupid! Do they really think we're going to kill the golden goose? We need Al-Qaeda! We need a Taliban insurgency! That's why we gave Osama bin Laden sanctuary. That's why we did as little as possible to kill him and to stop the Taliban."
It appears that President Obama has heard their remonstrations, as well--one of the reasons he upped the number of drone attacks within Pakistan, and sent Seal Team 6 on a daring mission to examine a compound they believed might house the Chief Terrorist.
3 comments:
Late to the party BD and this is a very thought provoking post. I'd say your analysis is spot on. Neither the Pakistanis or the Afghans wish to defeat Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but they're not the only one's interested in dollars. The "threats" from these two also justify the flow of dollars to the military industrial complex--which has become increasingly privatized. Moreover, the "threats" provide convenient cover to extract Afghanistan's energy resources as well. History tells us, from the Spanish-American war, to WWII, to Vietnam and Iraq that justifications are often created to go to war that often have little to do with the real reasons for going to war. Many times these justifications are provocations or just created events (i.e. the Maine explosion justifying the Spanish-American war or the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident that justified the Vietnam War). Afterall, it's very hard to tell someone that they're giving their lives for acquisition of energy resources or to fuel the coffers of a company like Xe.
Quite frankly, knowing the history of lies used to justify war has caused me to be quite skeptical of what we're told and these misadventures are costing us dearly in terms of lives and treasury. The scrap heap of history is littered with the remains of nations who've succumbed to imperial overstretch and America is surely headed in the same direction.
BD, further to my point, I offer this link that describes Operation Northwoods which was proposed during the Kennedy administration to create justification of war with Cuba. This is not something that's widely known or recounted in our history books.
Please read through this. You can't, or at least I can't, read through this and not think about the narrative that we've been given on contemporary terrorist events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
@Greg L: "The "threats" from these two also justify the flow of dollars to the military industrial complex--which has become increasingly privatized."
It's good to hear from you! You're right, of course, the only losers here are the American people, as the two wars have made many people and countries wealthy, including war profiteers.
Only recently, the House passed a bill to keep student loan rates in place, rather than see them double, but, characteristic of Republicans, they're paying for the lower rates by taking funds from women's preventative health care programs.
As a nation we can susidize big oil, finance green energy startups, even bail out banks and auto manufactures, but we can't invest in our greatest resource--the American people.
"Many times these justifications are provocations or just created events (i.e. the Maine explosion justifying the Spanish-American war or the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident that justified the Vietnam War)."
Not to forget the "justification" for invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein's supposed cache of WMD's (weapons of mass destrution), which Bush joked about at the Annual White House Press Corps Dinner.
"The scrap heap of history is littered with the remains of nations who've succumbed to imperial overstretch and America is surely headed in the same direction."
Most assuredly. As long as the American people aren't in control of their own governance, but leave it up to the monied interest in the form of special interest payouts to Congress, out interest will never prevail, as we only cast votes, and special-interest money tells us how to cast that vote in ways that satify our biotries and biases, even if it opposes our self interest.
"I can't, read through this and not think about the narrative that we've been given on contemporary terrorist events."
Will do! I find it hard to believe that this nation was caught flatfooted during 9-11.
Not only did 9-11 provide "justification" for two wars, but the "Patriot Act," spying on the American people, (There's new spy center, either completed or near completion.) consolidation of most of our intelligence community into one agency, Homeland Security, to name a few.
Post a Comment