Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Petraeus Assessment

You and I have a different view of what is "absolute" about "absolute hegemony". In the political sense, I see the term "absolute" as meaning "imposing by any means necessary to prevent any deviation whatsoever". I agree that the powerful elite seek a world in which the US is predominant. I do not agree that all except a very few - who so far remain unnamed - seek a world in which the US is absolutely predominant.

The current Iraq debate provides a perfect example. More and more of the powerful elite are coming to eschew the cost of absolute predominance in Iraq and accept something short of the "total victory" (i.e., absolute hegemony) that the neo-con's insist upon.

Even at the time of the October 2002 Resolution, more than half of the Democratic members of Congress voted against authorizing the use of force (i.e, absolutism) against Iraq. More than half. What kind of imperial elitism did their vote represent?

Or are they, the majority of Dem's in Congress in October of 2002, perhaps the noble and notable exceptions to whom you referred? [/quote]

some of them Steve, but over the history of imperial america, the dems have voted and supported wars and funded interventions, and keep on doing so. when the boot is on the other foot the republicans also vote and rail against intervention but always never enough to make a difference a safe protest vote that doesnt disrupt the imperial train - except when a particular misadventure goes horribly wrong - like vietnam. but it is never or rarely the intent that is questions - almost always the execution of the wars in question.

I also dont forget the Democrats who played their salespeoples parts - including both clintons i believe.


i dont see iraq as too much of a deviation from this past history. its just as ive said we know more about it in real time.

im sure there are those even in politics that are abhorred by scuh imperial machinations but there is a majority consensus on the policy of empire

I think you are overstating this point and perhaps confusing reality. I have yet to read of any neocons who have appealed to religion as a justification for American hegemony or referred to American economic preeminence as a Christian imperative.

The reality is it is simple. Money. The argument is also simple. Neocons (and other economists) believe business be protected to greatest advantage i.e. allow them to remain in business to make the most money possible, which in turn will benefit all the citizens of America. The neocons believe this is the fundamental issue at stake, that America will no longer have that global advantage when China & India bring to bear the full weight of the economic explosion. The believe we will lose our position in the world which in turn will directly affect all American citizens.
Read the current series of articles about Cheney in WaPo.

Religion has nothing to do with what these people want but is a vehicle to be hi-jacked and used much as the OBL has used Islamic fundamentalists to try and implement his agenda.



I have never been sure that everyone understands what is going on (especially me). I suspect there are underlying principles which have been excluded from conversation as not being seen or considered not relevant. This is the reason I keep asking for answers to my questions.

A perfect example would be Cheney as exposed in Gellman/Becker's current article. From his perspective he understands precisely what is at stake and knows precisely what must be done to achieve those goals.

My question is to what extent does government control business. There can be no doubt business is essential for the economic well being of our country. So how does government (assuming government has the right) balance the equation of what is best for business and at the same time what is best for the people. If we follow Cheney's line of thinking government has no right to be involved and thus business should be left alone to pursue their economic goals of making money.

When congressmen voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, I seriously doubt if any of them were considering any economic premises on which this action was based. So are those people who are now campaigning against the war considering the economic consequences? I believe they are again inspecting short sighted policies without regard for the validity of the underlying principles.

For some the answer is simple, we have to find alternative energy sources which can replace our dependence on foreign oil. I believe when Cheney met with the energy barons in 2001 they told him exactly what they needed from the government. I believe they told him they needed 15-20 years (this is of course just a speculative baseline)of continuously increasing oil supplies which would guarantee US economic preeminence and offer enough time to figure out how to transition away from oil (presuming alternatives are found) and continue to make money.

Unfortunately the ME situation is "complexified" by Israeli considerations. Thus we may be left with no guarantees from Iraq (lack of stability) or SA (tenuous power structure) and of course nothing from Iran. Thus the three largest oil reserves are in jeopardy of not fulfilling our economic expectations.

On the reverse the same thing can be said of those who continue to support Iraqi policy i.e. they apparently don't understand the underlying economic issues.

For some leaving the ME would be tantamount to certifying our economic death. For me it answers many questions. It says we need to find alternative energy sources. It says we no longer are compelled to be involved in the ME due our reliance on their oil. It says we allow people to determine their own destiny. It says we can re-formulate ME foreign policy and base it on realpolitik.

Will we leave for the right reasons? Petraeus & a number of others have emphasized that a political solution must be had. This is of course only one aspect. The other being a critical assessment of the underlying ME foreign policy principles.

Unfortunately that "explosion" is already happening. Most predictions are that China will be the world's dominant economy by the 2040-2050 time frame.

At that time the US dollar will cease to be the world's reserve currency, meanying that the US credit rating will be zero since we will no longer be able to borrow our way out of trouble (when your currency is trhe world's reserve currency, other nations have to hold large amounts of yor currency as their own safety stock).

When the end comes, it will come swiftly and hard. Central banks will dume the US dollar so fast your will think the US is Zimbabwe.

And all those business leaders who "supported" the Neocons will have their own wealth in other currencies (The Rupee, Yuan and Euro).

Of course, borrowing an extra couple of $US Trillion to finance tax cuts for Bush contributors and launch a war in Iraq (cost, $US 350 million/day) certainly will help to make the US's landing that much more painful for those without the wealth to stash their money abroad.

But that means nothing to NeoConservatives, whose "vision", unlike that of us lesser humans, is measured in centuries.

Sept report on Iraq will tell it straight -Petraeus




O Great and Mighty General, We Believe!

Sarchasm does not suit you Steve!

TAT

Apparently we don't have to wait as General [Casey] claims troop surge is working .

The general has now joined the company of Cheney and the neocon contributors at the Weekly Standard including the architect of the surge, Kagan, in "The Surge is Working" pep rally.

Why would anyone in their right mind join the company of men who have not gotten anything right about Iraq yet?

Additionally we have this:

Top general may propose pullbacks By Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers



I guess Petraeus and Crocker don't know how to use the spin cycle.

Imagine if you will a group of very powerful individuals getting together and predicting "if we can just topple the current heavy-handed Ba'athist regime in Iraq, then look the other way whilst all the various factions arm themselves to the teeth and commence to killing and destroying the crap out of each other, won't that play handily into the profit-making of the war machinery and petro industries that we are all so heavily invested in?"

Would you say they got it wrong?

Can you imagine that that is what Chairman Cheney and his neo-con buddies have been thinking ever since they decided to advise then-President Clinton to launch an all-out attack against Iraq in 1998?

Actually this item is in error.

It uses the words "will be" written by the White House.

Of course everyone in the United States, except the MSM of course, knows that the report "already has been" written by the White House: Back in January when the Surge was announced.

Only two people in the United States who will be surprised by the Report: Joe Lieberman and Chris Mathews. Both gush over "The General's Report" and its recommendation to "Stay the Course".

Lieberman will not be surprised, Philly Steve. He believed in The Surge all along.