You really have to ask why Democrats want a new and different foreign affair that will do what Mort Sahl so wonderfully said about the last Cold War: "Every time the Russians would put an American in prison, we would get tough and retaliate. We would put an American in prison."

Politics is not that hard to understand once you see it as a contest of interests. The interests do not have to be rational; usually they are not. But they are comprehensible.

For the last 37 years (ever since the Shia clerics took control of Iran) the world's greatest single source of energy–the Middle East–has squandered more money that the entire U.S. Federal debt on a religious war. (Of course, with our usual American blindness to other people's quarrels, the United States spent its own trillions.) But, just as it is really very difficult for Bushes I and II to explain what exactly was the American interest in joining with the Sunnis (who were the terrorists on 9/11), it becomes harder and harder for the party of the CIA and other national security bureaucracies to explain what the U.S. gets out of confronting the Russians.

I really wish the New York Times could explain it. I also wish the "conservatives" would stop being their covert allies and spouting the usual garbage about Americans dying in foreign wars to "protect our freedoms". The greatest single actual threat to individual Americans' freedoms has always been the self-righteousness of the internal bureaucracies and their self-interest in maintaining law and order. The enforcers of the drug laws and the thuggery of their enforcement remain a far greater threat to "freedom" than all the digital aggressions of the Russians, Chinese and everyone else.

In between bouts of inebriation this morning (after all, Grant is my hero), I was reading about Kitchener, Lloyd George, and Winston Churchill and their parts in helping to make
The Great War almost inevitable. They really were neoCons; even as they shuttled between party loyalties, they remained fixed in their determination to have a long war. Because the war party in the State Department (those believers in mainstream Sunni Islam) did a nasty in the Ukraine, some are determined to see the President-elect as just another puppet. Perhaps they are right. But their assessment does seem to quarrel with the fact that we have Trump and Putin on one side and the national security bureaucracy and the Democrats on the other.





Speak your mind

2 Comments so far

  1. Peter Maharajh on December 20, 2016 1:20 pm

    This opened a few doors for my thinking. So clearly written. Wonderful panorama. I just have no idea what is real or valid anymore though. After reading Mr. Niederhoffers second book my brain was warped with mistrust for almost all information. I don’t even trust price patterns anymore (Tudor is doing it now too). I just hope there is minimal suffering for everyone this year. Peace.

  2. Ron Haave on December 20, 2016 2:01 pm

    Many times inebriation leads to clarity. In this case it triumphs.
    For nearly fifty years after 1945 “We” fought the Former Soviet Union with an economic system so strong as to cause the complete collapse of that entity. Russian population is now less than half that of the United States,life expectancy continues to decline. The vaunted KGB was incapable of preventing the collapse. In short, “we” won. The neocon response was to push NATO to include former Soviet allies and continue to treat Russia as an “evil empire” in spite of Russia’s manifest weaknesses. What is victory in the mind of a neocon? Nuclear devastation (Japan)?; Boots on every square meter (Germany)?


Resources & Links