"The sovereignty you have over your work will inspire far more people than the actual content ever will." - Gaping Void
Naive as I am I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could favor war, but I'm not blind nor deaf. Gareth Porter has a piece up "Serial Denial And The Permanent War System." In it he quotes Andrew Bacevich:Bacevich suggests that personal and institutional interests bind the U.S. political elite and national security bureaucrats to that system of global military dominance. The politicians and bureaucrats will continue to insist on those principles, he writes, because they “deliver profit, power and privilege to a long list of beneficiaries: elected and appointed officials, corporate executives and corporate lobbyists, admirals and generals, functionaries staffing the national security apparatus, media personalities and policy intellectuals from universities and research organizations.”Porter concludes that those who oppose war must oppose the systems which create it. I agree but this Iran situation is pressing. Steve Clemons writes about "the bomber boys" Israel's Iran Strike Option. The depressing thing about many of the comments is a "damn the logic of interests" sentiment.Much of what's driving this march to bomb Iran is crazy.
Absolutely. Empires are usually ruled by the warmaking class. And permanent war is what keeps them in their privileged position.
Last night Vinay Gupta tweeted that he'd been "obsessed" by the Iran bombing scenario for a few hours. I was happy to see the word because it captured my state. What really set me off yesterday was a comment by Col. Pat Lang that more that 50% chance seemed right.It's pretty much a given that Israel can't do the bombing alone, so I took Lang's comment to mean that within the USA military thinking there is a greater than 50% chance. Of course Lang would like to reduce those chances, but from what I can tell he says what he means.I deplore the incentives for permanent war, but at least there's a sort of logic to them. And there's a twisted sort of logic in convincing Iranian leaders that the USA is actually crazy enough. I don't think that's Lang's game. I took him to mean that within the military leadership of the USA there is a better than 50% chance of approving bombing Iran; no bluffing. That notion seems crazy to me and thinking it drives me crazy!
Tony Blair "I wouldn't take the risk of Iran with a nuclear weapon.". It's embarrassing that I find it so hard to think beyond the steam of profanity that riles my mind with such news reports.
Agreed. And to think that I voted for the guy! :-((Once, long ago.)
Post a Comment