I believe that Osama Bin Laden's capture would impede the Bush Administration's policies. If OBL were captured, the people would immediately begin clamoring for a declaration of victory in the war on terror which would immediately make the prospect of invading Middle East countries less palatable for the American people. OBL has much more value at large than in captivity. If he is captured, the allegations of a coming terrorist attack would carry less weight and people might begin to turn attention to issues that are more important to ordinary people than terrorism. I can hardly imagine a less favorable climate for the Bush administration.
For an oil man, like Bush or Cheney, the last six years have been an unending dream. They have been able to dispense with every hint of fiscal responsibility since the war on terror began. What's more, this money has not gone to the traditional sources of government spending but to an already bloated military on arms that are not designed to fight terrorists. Even better for them, if anyone asks any questions they get to accuse them of treason or anti-Americanism. No other administration has had that power since the possibly the second Roosevelt Administration.
All of this could stop if OBL were captured. These benefits vastly outweigh any short-lived support the administration might experience as a result of his capture. It would take a couple of months before that would wear off and then we would all be left with the same administration looking other places to rouse up fear. The cold war lasted a half a century--and to whose benefit? The people were never any safer, in fact they could not have been less safe. There were proxy wars conducted in places like Korea and Vietnam that we were told were necessary to keep us safe, and during these wars there were elements in the military hounding for expansion of hostilities. In fact, in both wars these elements urged the use of nuclear weapons.
Between these two wars, there were constants attempts make war, against Cuba for example. The reason was always that there was a threat that had to be dealt with. Had any previous administration had the opportunity to play on the fear that 9/11 brought, there is no question they would have--I cannot imagine that even Carter would have been able to respond any differently than Bush did after 9/11.
I believe the reason is simply that the defense industry represents the most powerful element in the U.S. government. As you know, the defense industry is a collection of corporations that produce weapons of war that they sell to governments--mainly the U.S. and Israel, but generally any country with which the United States has friendly relations. These corporations are often, but not always, publicly traded making them subject to the market just as any other company would be. Because their business model benefits from war, they naturally seek opportunities to prosecute war wherever possible.
The think tanks are the other critical link which has taken over the role of policy formulation in the absence of governmental organs that did so in the past. The think tanks are often funded by the corporations which in turn benefit from the policy the think tanks produce.
I suppose it is possible to look at this as some kind of conspiracy. The Carlyle Group receives plenty of criticism for alleged designs on world domination. I think that is a simplistic analysis. Every single corporation in existence has designs on world domination because their single concern is for profit maximization, without concern for anything else. What other conclusion can possibly be drawn? Profit maximization by definition has no limits.
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment