Show Me the Money
Show me the money
--film Jerry Maguire
All wars are fought for money
--Socrates
--film Jerry Maguire
All wars are fought for money
--Socrates
The anti-war commentators refer to the neocon commitment to Israel with the term Likudnik. This appears to be an overblown concept. It would be more appropriate to call them nudniks, if one must use the mamaloshen. And why not, in keeping with the multi-culti ethos which pervades pop culture today. (Just look at any Lost episode and you'll see what I mean. Don't look at your neighbor's, or your own, next barbeque function, however.)
Ascribing any prescient policy or devious planning at a strategic geopolitical level is beyond the limited vision of GWB and either of his equal opportunity Secretaries of State.
U.S. cluelessness and lack of sophistication does not imply a Likud link. U.S. policy does not have a bit in its mouth; it is more like a runaway stallion.
American policy must become proactive rather than reactive.
Ranger is inclined to follow the money. Israel is not the beneficiary of this war, and in fact, stands to suffer. The money is beyond the national sphere, and is favoring the oil producers and transnational bloodsuckers.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 4:25 PM
6 Comments:
Well I agree with you and Socrates that war is mostly about money, though Israel also has to worry about sheer survival.
I don't agree that U.S. foreign policy is a horse running free. After 9-11 , this horse has consistantly run in the direction that was set forth in the pre 9-11 writings of The Project for the New American Century. I hope that you have gone to their website and read the letters they wrote and noted who these guys are. W and company didn't have to come up with anything, he just signed on to their foreign policy plan.
It looks to me that the real Coalition of the Willing that took us to war is the Neo-cons (who are joined at the hip to Israel/ Likud, Saddam WAS a threat to Israel ) , The oil companies, Defense Contractors and anyone else politically connected to the flow of money who could make a few billion out of this deal.
As far as the current "Surge " plan goes, Our horse is now running exactly in the direction that was set out at The American Enterprise Institute and first released in Dec. 06 under the title "Choosing Victory: A plan for success in Iraq". If you haven't looked at it you can read it on the American Enterprise Institute web site, it's under the "short publications "tab. Also check out the "Members and Fellows" Lots of the same names everywhere you go.
Also, it turns out that The Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute share the same address. Funny.
Kevin in Granville
Exactly. I don't particularly pay attention to the Left in the US, but I think one problem in their thinking about Bush is that they tend to assume a paradigm and simplify their judgments based on this paradigm. This is as intellectually reductive and dishonest as the paradigms that the current people in the White House employ to pursue imperial ends in the Middle East and complete domestic control over the agenda.
So yeah, wrong as Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its degrading treatment towards Gazans, Lebanese, Syrians, and so on are, still they are the ones who ultimately stand to suffer most from any large-scale disorder in the Middle East, in that they do not have the advantage of being a large nation set safely away with an ocean between any real enemies.
In fact, many Israeli intellectuals and even politicians within the current government want to engage Syria and reach a peace deal based on a return of the Golan. What is strange is that it is Bush who is stopping Olmert and his government from reaching peace with Syria, as Olmert's aides and others in the Israeli government admit privately (if denying it publicly). This seems to me unprecedented in Israeli-US relations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot remember any US president who actively tried to stop a peace deal from being reached with an Arab country and Israel, in order to maintain his own country's regional dominance and power.
Cynical or deluded: that's my ultimate judgment on Bush. The Israelis, wrong as their occupation is, do have many people within their country who are more than willing to take pragmatic steps to increase peace, stability, and general national reconciliation between Israel and other countries. For the Israeli government to continue to ignore these voices and go along with all of the US's controversial plans (including the sending of arms to Fatah in order to provoke a conflict and threaten Hamas- another thing that Israelis in government have disputed), shows that the US and Israel have something in common in that current leaders of both countries are incredibly cynical, with the crucial difference that the Israelis have the people and the ideas to bring peace.
More info on "Choosing Victory: a Plan for Success in Iraq" on the American Enterprise Institute website.
It's quite a few pages into the "short publications" tab (unless you do a search). It was released on January 5, 2007. Author is Kagen.
Kevin in Granville
Dear Claymore, Kevin and Mike:
Jim is headed out of town for a couple of days, but he wanted me to thank each of you for your very thought-provoking and informed comments, which he listened to this morning. He intends to look at the materials you've suggested, and respond at that time.
Again, thanks for taking the time to engage in this way,
Lisa
I share your frustration with those who believe Israel controls American foreign policy. It doesn't--and the truth is far more complex.
It's certainly true that Israel is a prime component of the neoconservatives' plan, but it has to be looked at in a historical context.
In the 1940s, there was a similar lobby oriented around Chiang Kai-Shek's China---people who viewed it as the sort of lynchpin of American dominance in Asia. Time Magazine's Henry Luce was the most famous of the Sinophiles. China was not directing American policy, but it was fair to say that American policy was to preserve Kai-Shek's regime in order to have a capitalist buffer zone next to Red Russia.
Of course, Kai-Shek was an horrible dictator ruling over a deeply dysfunctional country, and blind American support didn't change that. Mao's Communists eventually took over. It makes you wonder, though, whether the problem could have been avoided if Luce and his fellow Sinophiles had let the government put any serious pressure on Kai-Shek to change his ways.
Similarly, neocons want Israel as a strategic stepping stone to attack the entire Mideast. But their blind support for Israel is not good for Israelis, whose national interests and security can best be advanced by coming to peace with the Palestinians.
Kevin,
I take your point. I am loathe to read the references you supply.
It would appear to this observer that Israel is in far greater danger from this Iraq than Saddam's Iraq. MSM will not address Iraqi support of Hezbollah, and this is something that should get far greater play,
Thanks for your comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home