7 Comments so far

1. MariusP February 5th, 2007 4:39 pm

   I’m a longtime admirer of Mr. Chernus’ columns. But I can’t say I follow the logic of this one. To say that the cause of war as “corporate greed” is too simple of an argument and that that is a large part of why it hasn’t taken hold just doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, Cheney’s words are important and there’s lots of complex analysis that can be done to better understand the machinations of the “neo-neocon” war machine. But, how to sell that to the “public” is beyond me. In my opinion, the general public has a short attention span – and is easily manipulated. To get them to focus on one main idea of a story (other than a sex scandal) is a challenge. The idea of convincing them that, “It’s a demonstration war. It’s war as theater. The victory we want to score can happen only inside the minds of the audience,” seems way to far fetched. People are too easily manipulated by fear. That is why US leaders always present a mortal enemy to be feared. Now, it’s Al Quaeda, Osama Bin Laden. Before that it was Hussein. Manuel Noriega, Qaddafi, the Soviets, communists … all the way back to the Indians. If you tell people they are in danger, they will allow you to do (almost) anything in the name of security. Besides, if the public was really interested in understanding the complexities of US foreign policy, they could read any Noam Chomsky speech. It’s all their in black and white. But ultimately, it IS about money, and controlling assets like oil (which is just another way of saying “money.”) Let’s start by getting people to see the obvious connections first – the administration lied to take us into war and yet no one is being held accountable – then we can work on the subtleties.

2. observer February 5th, 2007 9:01 pm

   MariusP:
   You do not accept that ““corporate greed” is too simple of an argument”. But Mr. Chernus is right and he explained his point by going back to Harry Truman’s Cold War. He could have gone to Red Scare and Palmers raids of 1919-1920. Then your statement that “it IS about money, and controlling assets like oil” will show oversimplification at once. Yes, it is about assets, including your PENSION FUNDS conveniently linked to the security market and other fiction that is performed in Capitalist Theater. You, me and many millions in the USA, after collapse of New Deal have invested interest in continuation of the New World Order, of which permanent War is a defining feature. If you still did not understand where I am driving to, it is not your fault. 60 years of intellectual desert in the US is not simply happening. It is artful work, which gave us to-day Left, infantile baby without rudder. It has no future. The only hope is that Right has even less of it. For if the first Iraq war in 1991 was the last salvo in the war against Russia, this war is the first salvo in the war against China and the USA does not stand a chance. I hope it is a beginning of end for profit economy.

   Read works of Leon Trotsky and V.I. Lenin, the founding fathers of neo-con movement.

3. chlorocardium February 5th, 2007 10:18 pm

   Imagine if we had spent half of the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS wasted on this lie-infested misadventure intead on investments in the well-being of the people of the middle east. That would afford us some real protection against attack. Imagine if we did not treat the rest of the world as the US’s personal cheap resource store and tactical playground. Imagine doing good for people instead of building the largest death creation operation on the planet. Imagine…

   The other half we could spend here to rebuild New Orleans, really fund schools, find ways to end the imprisonment industry, clean the environment and lower CO2 emissions. Its a lot of money. Oh no, can’t do that, too many people hate us. Why is that again?

4. Robert Settgast February 6th, 2007 12:26 am

   WAR MEASURES
   Even though my understanding of this war is limited to available news sources and history, it is clear that our legislators erred when they granted this unlearned and arrogant administration the authority to embark on this misadventure. The weapons inspectorswere there and we had contained Saddam. The resulting “civil war” and chaos had been predicted by many informed experts, and should have been obvious–but their advice was ignored.

   Things could have been even worse if Saddam really had a few biological or primitive nuclear weapons, and had unleashed them on our troops during th invasion. THis could have killed tens of thousands of our troops–not to mention the Iraqis. The administrations refusal to honor the advice of the recent advisory commission, which had recommended dialogue with the neighboring countries, is inconceivable.

   The only rational option left is for congress to sieze the war powers from the president–and then pursue a logicall course based on the recommendations of the commissions and informed advisors.(there are several). This would include dialogue with the neighboring nations (including our adversaries), firm commitments to end this disastrous misadventure,curbing profiteering and avoiding a war with Iran– among other things. The alternative is to permit continuation of this reckless course, which most experts believe would only add to the carnage.

   Robert Settgast
   San Rafael, CA
   415-492-1747
   rhsettgast@hotmail.com

5. Hector Perez February 6th, 2007 1:44 am

   The logic of this administration is reminiscent of the cold war hysteria I grew up with during the 50’s and 60’s. The names have changed, but the sons of the poor are still fighting the rich man’s wars, as they did in WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama,
   Afghanistan, Iraq and maybe Iran.
   The issue isn’t so much as how to present the case, whether a discussion of the international flow of capital, control of energy resources will convince your average citizens, rather a simple question instead would suffice. Are you willing to sacrifice your son? What is the point of preaching something , if one is not committed to practice what is being preached. How many sons or daughters of those congressmen that voted for this disastrous misadventure are risking their lives for the noble cause that our
   congress claims we should fight. Or, for that matter, how many sons or daughters of the well to do are on the front lines, in harms way. Not many. Again, the brunt of the responsibility falls on the working poor who pay for the rich man’s war with their dollars and
   the blood of their children. The issue before us is not all that new.
   It is only showing us its new face. How long do we continue to fall victim to the ideological shackles that our political system imposes
   on the discussion ? I’m not sure, but the dicusssion continues.

6. Vince Lawrence February 6th, 2007 11:37 am

   Professor Chernus is correct. Every American should have been made to read the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” Though it mostly reads like a Chrismas wish list of the military-industrial complex the preamble and introduction to that document provides the proof of what Mr. Chernus says.

   To summarize: it spits on the notion of a “peace dividend” (resulting from the Soviet collapse)and instead identifies a narrow window of opportunity to consolidate American power worldwide to protect and promote “American values, ideals, and way of life.”

   Every step Bush has taken has been dictated by this document. Indeed, that moron Rumsfeld stepped on his wang because he focused too narrowly on one aspect of a tactical analysis therin. Even Bush’s SOTU call for a buildup of the military was articulated in that document but couldn’t be said until we created enough enemies.

   Robert Settgast: how brave you are. Wish I had your guts.

7. Vince Lawrence February 6th, 2007 12:05 pm

   BTW: Chaney tried to get George I to accept an earlier version of the PNAC document in ‘92. A favorite photograph I saw was Dirty Dick walking briskly beside the elder trying to force it into the old man’s hands. The look on Daddy’s face shows he wanted no part of it. The current PNAC document was publicly released in 2000, but was adopted by the Bush campaign in ‘99 as their real hidden platform.

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)