Is there Any Way to Win?

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The young do not remember.

Foreign policy has been dominated by hawks for thirty years or so.

The foreign policy of empires in the history of empires has always been to expand and conquer when feasible, and go for "peace" or back down when threatened with a worthy adversary. Nobody in the international community has yet officially challenged US empire building with any force, and hey, all those troops we have on payroll might as well expand the empire while they're at it instead of being payed to sit here and train for nothing...

Satire isn't just funny, it's also critical. So, yeah, let's laugh until we puke, and then remember the witty criticisms of the smile producing satire next time we vote.

Yes, I agree that satire is definitely a worthy and effective criticism. The problem I was trying to get at though is not that there's a problem with the message of satire, but there is a problem with the viewing audience.

People should be outraged by some of the things going in in government, and yet only a small number are actually speaking out or campaigning for REAL change. Politics have become nothing more than an entertaining spectacle. Sure, there has always been an element of entertainment in political contests, but our founding fathers took the matter very seriously, and some of the famous political cartoons from the days of our independence and the civil war really did inspire people to act. If you need proof that people just want political entertainment, simply watch the "political reports" of mainstream media on TV; much of it is now akin to the reports you will see on E! celebrity news. You can read about how Sarah Palin buys her glasses from X designer, or about what kinds of suits Barack wears, or about the number of houses John McCain owns...these are not real issues. The media does little real reporting because the masses, in general, would rather be entertained. Satire's critical message has little effect when people view it as a big joke and don't even care to consider the message.

You have a recent poll of voters coming back showing that 15% of them believe Obama is a muslim, when it is just blatantly not true. These will probably be the same people who cackle with glee at the upcoming W. movie, and maybe never get the point, or care enough to investigate an issue or a candidate.

[Didymos Thomas]

The foreign policy of empires in the history of empires has always been to expand and conquer when feasible, and go for "peace" or back down when threatened with a worthy adversary. Nobody in the international community has yet officially challenged US empire building with any force, and hey, all those troops we have on payroll might as well expand the empire while they're at it instead of being payed to sit here and train for nothing...

So you are saying that it is better for soldiers to slaughter people rather than sit in peace? That's a tough sell, Pangloss.

The US has been challenged - Islamic extremism. Personally, I'd like to see the challenge to US imperialism come from within, from the citizens of the United States.

The problem I was trying to get at though is not that there's a problem with the message of satire, but there is a problem with the viewing audience.

Ah, that is a good point. It's astonishing how many people do not get Stephen Colbert's joke, and scary how many people like the literal Colbert.

This is what we get when people stop reading books.

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

So you are saying that it is better for soldiers to slaughter people rather than sit in peace? That's a tough sell, Pangloss.

The US has been challenged - Islamic extremism. Personally, I'd like to see the challenge to US imperialism come from within, from the citizens of the United States.

Oh no, I am not trying to sell anything here, or to say that it is a good thing for soldiers to be slaughtering instead of training. But it does arguably make some economic sense, and if viewed from the collective, immoral eyes of "the state", it is doing good for the empire. Whether it is good or bad from an absolute standpoint is not what I'm getting at, but that the people who collectively make up "the state" have reasoned it to be a productive policy. These people do not consider absolute justice, but merely the will of the state (expand).

Islamic extremism is not a real challenge. It's like an amateur from Joe Blow's Gym stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson (in the 90s) and trying to make him flinch before getting KO'd. The islamic extremist threat has been hyped up to garner support for our war in the middle east. They might launch a few devastating attacks on us, but the net effect is that their actions do not affect our power. If we continue our current campaign and go after Iran or North Korea, Russia and/or China could decide to make a stand, and that would be the time where we consider a change in game plan.

[Didymos Thomas]

Oh no, I am not trying to sell anything here, or to say that it is a good thing for soldiers to be slaughtering instead of training. But it does arguably make some economic sense, and if viewed from the collective, immoral eyes of "the state", it is doing good for the empire. Whether it is good or bad from an absolute standpoint is not what I'm getting at, but that the people who collectively make up "the state" have reasoned it to be a productive policy. These people do not consider absolute justice, but merely the will of the state (expand).

Even from a purely economic perspective, I do not see the benefit. Either we deploy troops, which costs an immense amount of money, or we disband them which saves an immense amount of money. Considering the massive US deficit and national debt, saving some money sounds prudent.

Islamic extremism is not a real challenge. It's like an amateur from Joe Blow's Gym stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson (in the 90s) and trying to make him flinch before getting KO'd. The islamic extremist threat has been hyped up to garner support for our war in the middle east. They might launch a few devastating attacks on us, but the net effect is that their actions do not affect our power.

I disagree. I think the fact that our leaders used Islamic extremism as a way to scare the people into consenting to war is just greater evidence that Islamic extremism is a real threat. The extremist leaders understand that the US will not be defeated in a military fashion by their lose, underground network. Instead, their strategy is to ruin the US financially, which will effectively eliminate the ability of the US to engage in the sort of foreign policy the extremists despise: US pressure in their region of the world, both military and economic pressure.

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Even from a purely economic perspective, I do not see the benefit. Either we deploy troops, which costs an immense amount of money, or we disband them which saves an immense amount of money. Considering the massive US deficit and national debt, saving some money sounds prudent.

Hmm. Even though hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of valuable oil lies beneath the dirt of Iraq? If we can control that oil supply with our puppet Iraqi govt., it doesn't matter how expensive the war is--the economic benefit is there. On the other hand, consider the consequences of pulling out and giving that control up to whatever band of fighters steps in to take it over when we leave.

I disagree. I think the fact that our leaders used Islamic extremism as a way to scare the people into consenting to war is just greater evidence that Islamic extremism is a real threat. The extremist leaders understand that the US will not be defeated in a military fashion by their lose, underground network. Instead, their strategy is to ruin the US financially, which will effectively eliminate the ability of the US to engage in the sort of foreign policy the extremists despise: US pressure in their region of the world, both military and economic pressure.

Again, this was hyped up in order to give a more of a just reason for going in and controlling the oil fields. If we are so concerned about Islamic extremism, why do we have so few troops in afghanistan and so many in iraq? It is well known that al-qaeda operates in the hindu kush mountain region along the afghan-pakistani border. They might be sending some aid to the fight in Iraq, but their base is in those mountains.

Why then do we not focus all our might and power on attacking that region? It is because afghanistan is an economically worthless piece of real estate to conquer; it is filled with goat herders and opium farmers who are educated almost entirely by the Koran, and who live in what we would call third-world conditions. The "extremists" in Afghanistan now are gaining a stronger foothold across this group of states (it is really not a united country, and has never been in recent history), and it is not for our lack of ability to stop them. If we wanted to pour troops into Afghanistan (and dump money down the drain wiping them all out), we could take the country. But we want Iraq and its oil.

[Didymos Thomas]

Hmm. Even though hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of valuable oil lies beneath the dirt of Iraq? If we can control that oil supply with our puppet Iraqi govt., it doesn't matter how expensive the war is--the economic benefit is there. On the other hand, consider the consequences of pulling out and giving that control up to whatever band of fighters steps in to take it over when we leave.

Actually, cost does matter. Even with a puppet government in Iraq, the US only benefits from the oil in that we have a guaranteed supply of oil. The oil isn't free. We still have to buy the stuff. Already the cost of the war, trillions of dollars, has taken a serious toll on the American economy.

As for the power struggle in Iraq, this doesn't worry me much. A government exists and possesses a great deal of power. They may not always get along, but they will be able to get along well enough to combat local militia resistence.

On the other hand, consider the consequences of remaining. Countless thousands of innocent civilians slaughtered, trillions more dollars spent to protect a supply of oil, money that could be spent on developing American green technologies to replace oil.

Again, this was hyped up in order to give a more of a just reason for going in and controlling the oil fields. If we are so concerned about Islamic extremism, why do we have so few troops in afghanistan and so many in iraq? It is well known that al-qaeda operates in the hindu kush mountain region along the afghan-pakistani border. They might be sending some aid to the fight in Iraq, but their base is in those mountains.

I'm not saying the US government has handled the threat well. Bush et al. used terrorism to justify the Iraqi invasion; Afghanistan was a token battle form them. But this is just another example of US failed foreign policy.
That we went to war anywhere is a victory for the extremists. They want us to spend our money on an impossible war. Our invasion of Afghanistan was a great success for the extremists, and the invasion of Iraq was an unexpected triumph for them.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. It was a bad foreign policy decision.

Why then do we not focus all our might and power on attacking that region? It is because afghanistan is an economically worthless piece of real estate to conquer; it is filled with goat herders and opium farmers who are educated almost entirely by the Koran, and who live in what we would call third-world conditions. The "extremists" in Afghanistan now are gaining a stronger foothold across this group of states (it is really not a united country, and has never been in recent history), and it is not for our lack of ability to stop them. If we wanted to pour troops into Afghanistan (and dump money down the drain wiping them all out), we could take the country. But we want Iraq and its oil.

This doesn't change the strategy of the extremists - which is to bleed the US of as much wealth as possible until we decide to leave the Middle East altogether.

Oh, by the way, Afghanistan does have economic value. You said it: opium. Prior to the US invasion, virtually no opium was coming out of Afghanistan. After the invasion, opium production skyrocketed and Afghanistan grabbed 80% of the world's market share for opium. This is a boon for drug smugglers and for the pharmaceutical companies.

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Actually, cost does matter. Even with a puppet government in Iraq, the US only benefits from the oil in that we have a guaranteed supply of oil. The oil isn't free. We still have to buy the stuff. Already the cost of the war, trillions of dollars, has taken a serious toll on the American economy.

We are in a position now to setup the US oil companies with the best contracts for Iraqi oil. The US benefits from the oil economically, as well as from a security standpoint. Modern industry runs on fossil fuels, and we didn't want Saddam to be raking in the cash from Iraqi oil. Iran is a threat for the same reason, we don't want the money going there and funding their economy and thus their military might. Saudi Arabia has wisely used this resource to become a great economy in the middle east, and we don't want others to do this who are threats. The cost of war, however high, is still far below the valuation of the control of the Iraqi oil. Also, you have to remember that all of this war spending doesn't just go down the drain; billions have gone into US corporate contracts for supplies and services needed for war. This flow of money into private enterprise helps economic growth overall. In addition, the US control of Iraqi oil will work to bring down prices.

That we went to war anywhere is a victory for the extremists. They want us to spend our money on an impossible war. Our invasion of Afghanistan was a great success for the extremists, and the invasion of Iraq was an unexpected triumph for them.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. It was a bad foreign policy decision.

Well, it is true that al-qaeda et al. did see a US war in the middle east as a way to bring us down. With Afghanistan, clearly there could be a repeat of the Russians' failed attempt there, and they hoped to inflict the same type of damage on us. Our campaign in Afghanistan though has been much more successful than the Russians' was.

I don't think the war in Iraq is a triumph for anyone yet. The region is stabilizing though somewhat, compared to our initial attacks, and the oil production is back up. This is a good sign for us, not for the extremists. And if you consider this war from the mindset of the neo-conservative machiavellians who run foreign policy in this country, I think it was a great policy decision for them. If nothing else, we took Saddam out of power, who was in position to rise in power with the rising oil prices. We've destabilized the region and installed our own government, giving the US more power and control in the middle east. If we can withdraw and remain in control of an allied Iraqi government with excellent oil contracts, it will be even better. Of course this is from the eyes of our collective empire, not the friends and families of dead soldiers, or the absolute view of morality or human decency.

Oh, by the way, Afghanistan does have economic value. You said it: opium. Prior to the US invasion, virtually no opium was coming out of Afghanistan. After the invasion, opium production skyrocketed and Afghanistan grabbed 80% of the world's market share for opium. This is a boon for drug smugglers and for the pharmaceutical companies.

There was no value in hte opium until we decided to invade; as you said, the Taliban had entirely eradicated opium production due to their strict Islamic laws which prohibited such things. Shortly before the start of our campaign in Afghanistan, we even sent the taliban some multi-million dollar sum as a reward for eliminating the opium problem. This is not of economic value to us...the money now goes to the enemy, where it is used as a tool for jihad, to purchase supplies and weapons. Our presence in Afghanistan created this problem.

[Didymos Thomas]

We are in a position now to setup the US oil companies with the best contracts for Iraqi oil. The US benefits from the oil economically, as well as from a security standpoint. Modern industry runs on fossil fuels, and we didn't want Saddam to be raking in the cash from Iraqi oil. Iran is a threat for the same reason, we don't want the money going there and funding their economy and thus their military might. Saudi Arabia has wisely used this resource to become a great economy in the middle east, and we don't want others to do this who are threats. The cost of war, however high, is still far below the valuation of the control of the Iraqi oil. Also, you have to remember that all of this war spending doesn't just go down the drain; billions have gone into US corporate contracts for supplies and services needed for war. This flow of money into private enterprise helps economic growth overall. In addition, the US control of Iraqi oil will work to bring down prices.

I follow you, really. But I think your conclusions are incorrect. Yes, the securing of Iraqi oil will have a positive impact on the US economy. However, that positive impact is necessarily offset by the negative impact of the cost of the war which is in excess of three trillion dollars. The economic benefit of secure Iraqi oil will not offset the cost of the war. Don't believe me, go read what economists are saying.

Well, it is true that al-qaeda et al. did see a US war in the middle east as a way to bring us down. With Afghanistan, clearly there could be a repeat of the Russians' failed attempt there, and they hoped to inflict the same type of damage on us. Our campaign in Afghanistan though has been much more successful than the Russians' was.

According to who? According to the US government and corporate media, yes the US invasion of Afghanistan has been more successful than the Russian invasion. I think they are about the same. Neither nation can hope for any real "victory".

But the Iraq war is the real economic threat to the US, and has been a rousing victory for extremists. The US national debt is climbing every day, and a balanced budget is a fantasy right now. This is serious trouble for the US, and a huge victory for extremists. An economic victory, and all wars are economic conflicts.

There was no value in hte opium until we decided to invade; as you said, the Taliban had entirely eradicated opium production due to their strict Islamic laws which prohibited such things. Shortly before the start of our campaign in Afghanistan, we even sent the taliban some multi-million dollar sum as a reward for eliminating the opium problem. This is not of economic value to us...the money now goes to the enemy, where it is used as a tool for jihad, to purchase supplies and weapons. Our presence in Afghanistan created this problem.

The money does not go just to the "enemy". The money also goes to big pharma, and to bankers who launder the dirty money involved. The real winners from the drug trade are the bankers; that's why this stuff is illegal so that they can continue to rake in immense sums of cash from the trade, sums that would be much lower in a legal market.

And of course the opium had value - profit potential. Big pharma, drug smugglers and bankers benefit from that profit.

But you are right - our presence in Afghanistan did create the problem. However, something to note, the US did this intentionally. When we toppled the regime we released the drug smugglers apprehended by the Taliban. We put the criminals back on the street - and in high office; the biggest opium king-pin is the brother of the Afghani president.