Friday, July 08, 2005
Base Closings: More Than Meets The Eye?
Okay folks, I've been mulling this over for weeks now, and I want to bounce these ideas off of you.
With the number and variety of bases slated to be closed by the Department of Defense, I can only think of two instances when closing the quantity and quality of bases that they're talking about makes sense:
Thoughts? Comments? Additions? ΒΆ 3:17 PM
Okay folks, I've been mulling this over for weeks now, and I want to bounce these ideas off of you.
With the number and variety of bases slated to be closed by the Department of Defense, I can only think of two instances when closing the quantity and quality of bases that they're talking about makes sense:
- The DOD came up with the list of bases that will actually be closed when they first started the process, then added the others to give the the public, the cities, towns and states something to 'spin their wheels' about. After all the fighting and negotiating and political behind-the-scenes arm-bending, the DOD will get to close the bases they were going to close in the first place, while giving the public something to feel a sense of accomplishment about. OR...
- The upper eschelons of power within the DOD are re-making the country's defense force into something much less high tech and less careful about leaving bodies around on both sides of a conflict, basically trading 'surgical' strikes for 'blunt-force trauma' attacks. In this manner, the DOD and the "Military-Industrial Complex" that Eisenhower had warned against more than 40 years ago could save/make money by not only making less use of expensive, high-maintenance ordinance and equipment, and more use of expensive corporate contracts, but by creating a self-sustaining cycle of conflict to generate a need for these corporate services. But first, a small test. A small war that could be easily handled and, if not easily won, at least controlled while optimum parameters could be established for not only manipulating cashflow, but the other branches of government and the will of the citizenry as well.
Iraq, of course, would be the perfect target. Almost a decade of sanctions had left the country weakened, and their continued resistance to no-fly zones and weapons inspections had kept the country and its dictator in the public eye. All that was needed was a reason that the public could get behind.
Along came September 11, 2001. The country as a whole had been sucker-punched and the collective consciousness of the country called out for retribution. The administration's first question was, of course, "Is there any way we can tie this to Iraq?"
The answer, of course, was "no". But doing something is always better than doing nothing, and the administration began 'tying' Iraq to 9/11 in various ways. Ficticious meetings between Iraqi officials and al Queda operatives (despite the fact that bin Laden had professed a philosophical dislike for Saddam) and the 'revelation' of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction primed the pump while Congress willingly held the catch basin.
Corporate contracts for equipment, services and personnel have grown by leaps and bounds even as enrollment in the armed services has decreased. The decerase doesn't seem to worry the DOD, since they've begun cutting veterans' benefits and generally done everything they can to make military service even less attractive.
This step in the evolution... ummm... excuse me... this step in the intelligent design of warfare as it applies to corporate earnings seems to be a careful mixture of misdirection, cronyism, back-room favors and control of the collective public psyche.
Over the past four years, they have proven to themselves that the will of the people can be controlled and directed for a period of time sufficient to attack a soverign country without the aid of world opinion or United Nations support and spend billions of dollars in the process regardless of the state of the treasury.
Thoughts? Comments? Additions? ΒΆ 3:17 PM
Comments:
<< Home
By the way, I'd like to thank the Department of Defense for kindly hosting the picture of Unka Donald on their website.
Our tax dollars a work! [grin]
Our tax dollars a work! [grin]
I don't think there is any doubt as to the correctness of your assumption though I think it is part of column A and B. The addition of bases they likely have no intention of closing is for the political support of representatives/senators from those states, e.g., Thune in SD who won over Daschle predominantly because he promised he would make sure no base is closed there. Well, one is slated for closure - but, don't you think the administration will see their way clear to helping dear Senator Thune so he can keep his promise to the populace of SD and gain political points for himself and the GOP?
I tend to agree that they want to give more "jobs" to the private sector and that solves many problems for the Bushies because if something goes really wrong, and it was a contractor not the military, it certainly relieves them of a lot of the moral responsibility. And we won't even mention the money that is flowing into corporate pockets that will eventually flow into accounts belonging to the big boys and ex-CEOs of these same corporations.
There is a woman with whom I work who is from the Ukrane... she refuses to talk politics because she says her experience is politician = criminal. To her way of thinking that says it all and discussion is futile. There was a time that I would have agrued with her saying that while I don't claim politicians are the most honest folks, they are our employees and as such we can have influence on them. That is less and less true. Someone said the other day that the founding fathers would not recognize the country as it exists now. How sad and how true.
I tend to agree that they want to give more "jobs" to the private sector and that solves many problems for the Bushies because if something goes really wrong, and it was a contractor not the military, it certainly relieves them of a lot of the moral responsibility. And we won't even mention the money that is flowing into corporate pockets that will eventually flow into accounts belonging to the big boys and ex-CEOs of these same corporations.
There is a woman with whom I work who is from the Ukrane... she refuses to talk politics because she says her experience is politician = criminal. To her way of thinking that says it all and discussion is futile. There was a time that I would have agrued with her saying that while I don't claim politicians are the most honest folks, they are our employees and as such we can have influence on them. That is less and less true. Someone said the other day that the founding fathers would not recognize the country as it exists now. How sad and how true.
Tori,
I think one of the mistakes that people make is that they don't see far enough down the road.
Sure, there will be plenty of perks for Bush&Company, but by far the big payoff will be down the road.
It's more a process of eroding away the things that they don't like or are afraid of, and getting the masses (what I call "sheeple") so that when something comes along that allows them to really grab for the brass ring, the herd of sheeple will just look up from their grazing for a moment and then go back to what they were doing.
It Neo-Cons are nothing if not far-sighted. Just about everything I've seen them do in the past 35 years has been a long-term plan. Even Tricky Dick's "Phases" for the economy had the affect of setting the stage for later doings.
Instead of scratching their heads when the Neo-Cons put forth some new 'initiative', the sheeple should immediately say, "where could this lead in 10 years?"
Let's get this blog cookin'!
The Liberal Avenger
I think one of the mistakes that people make is that they don't see far enough down the road.
Sure, there will be plenty of perks for Bush&Company, but by far the big payoff will be down the road.
It's more a process of eroding away the things that they don't like or are afraid of, and getting the masses (what I call "sheeple") so that when something comes along that allows them to really grab for the brass ring, the herd of sheeple will just look up from their grazing for a moment and then go back to what they were doing.
It Neo-Cons are nothing if not far-sighted. Just about everything I've seen them do in the past 35 years has been a long-term plan. Even Tricky Dick's "Phases" for the economy had the affect of setting the stage for later doings.
Instead of scratching their heads when the Neo-Cons put forth some new 'initiative', the sheeple should immediately say, "where could this lead in 10 years?"
Let's get this blog cookin'!
The Liberal Avenger
That is very true about their long term plans and they have been working on that, and admit it totally, for the last 30 years or so. They were in the minority for a long time and were basically out of the game in a lot of ways, until Newt came back with his contract with american (which Georgie boy has completely nullified and voided) and swept in a large republican majority in congress. To that you add a liberal (I only wish) sprinkling of evangelical sentiment with an unhealthy fear of hell as threatened tacitly by BushCo and their minions, and what you have is a faustian contract with a somewhat lower form of diety (depending of course on your definition of high and low ;)).
And I fear science is about to suffer another blow, just as an aside here... a cardinal who is very close to the current pope came out with a statement today that he feels that evolution as it is being currently taught may be "in error". We having fun yet in the 19th century???
And I fear science is about to suffer another blow, just as an aside here... a cardinal who is very close to the current pope came out with a statement today that he feels that evolution as it is being currently taught may be "in error". We having fun yet in the 19th century???
Ahhhh.... the good ol' Contract For America". Ya wanna talk about a made-for-TV event??
I'll bet that you're like me and can still see Newt and the other republicans (not yet really Neo-Cons) standing in front of the big "Contract For America" banner.
Of course, the hoopla died down right after the little red light went out on the TV camera, and then Newt faded away quickly and unceremoniously.
I've heard from several sources inside the beltway that the reason was that good ol' Newt was so busy bending secretar... ummm... office assistants... over his desk that he was missing meetings.
Of course, had he been a democrat, he would have been sliced up publically, but one of their own must be removed quietly. After all, the integrity of the party was at stake. Conservatives eat their own. One slip and one's value to the party diminishes. Especially if it was for something that you've just BBQ'd an opponent for.
Although Newt made some noises just before and just after the last election, I don't think we have to worry about him running for prez. He was hyping his book. Who would buy the book if he hadn't said that there was a chance that he'd run next time? Let's face it, liberals werent' going to buy it anyway, and conservatives are busy right now trying to figure out who will replace King George the Confused.
Science is indeed facing a rough road over the next three and a half years, but it's the rough road that makes science work most of the time. Copernicus and Galileo were condemned by the church and still thought and innovation took place.
LA
I'll bet that you're like me and can still see Newt and the other republicans (not yet really Neo-Cons) standing in front of the big "Contract For America" banner.
Of course, the hoopla died down right after the little red light went out on the TV camera, and then Newt faded away quickly and unceremoniously.
I've heard from several sources inside the beltway that the reason was that good ol' Newt was so busy bending secretar... ummm... office assistants... over his desk that he was missing meetings.
Of course, had he been a democrat, he would have been sliced up publically, but one of their own must be removed quietly. After all, the integrity of the party was at stake. Conservatives eat their own. One slip and one's value to the party diminishes. Especially if it was for something that you've just BBQ'd an opponent for.
Although Newt made some noises just before and just after the last election, I don't think we have to worry about him running for prez. He was hyping his book. Who would buy the book if he hadn't said that there was a chance that he'd run next time? Let's face it, liberals werent' going to buy it anyway, and conservatives are busy right now trying to figure out who will replace King George the Confused.
Science is indeed facing a rough road over the next three and a half years, but it's the rough road that makes science work most of the time. Copernicus and Galileo were condemned by the church and still thought and innovation took place.
LA
King George the confused! I love it! We need to have THAT made into a bumper sticker - it might be one phrase that all dems and liberals can get behind and stick to ;).
On a peripheral and somewhat related topic, I was just watching the gasbags and the members of the panel were commenting about the possibilities for the court nomination. Of course our ol' friend Alberto (Geneva Conventions are Quaint) Gonzales' name was being bandied about, and opinions were requested from all on the show. The comment that struck me as particularly pertinent was the one that indicated the Gonzales family might not be ready for him to take a lifetime appointment, since he hasn't had a chance to amass enough personal wealth yet.
I found that to be an intriguing comment, tantamount to saying that you don't serve the country altruistically or for the prestige until you have enough money and worth (read: ties to industry and big business?) to make you a good soldier. I don't know offhand what a supreme makes but I'm damned sure it is more than I do!!!
Just my first Sunday thought ;).
On a peripheral and somewhat related topic, I was just watching the gasbags and the members of the panel were commenting about the possibilities for the court nomination. Of course our ol' friend Alberto (Geneva Conventions are Quaint) Gonzales' name was being bandied about, and opinions were requested from all on the show. The comment that struck me as particularly pertinent was the one that indicated the Gonzales family might not be ready for him to take a lifetime appointment, since he hasn't had a chance to amass enough personal wealth yet.
I found that to be an intriguing comment, tantamount to saying that you don't serve the country altruistically or for the prestige until you have enough money and worth (read: ties to industry and big business?) to make you a good soldier. I don't know offhand what a supreme makes but I'm damned sure it is more than I do!!!
Just my first Sunday thought ;).
Interesting quote. I'm guessing that your talking abotu Meet the Press (or is that Press the Meat?) or similar Sunday morning show.
I know very little about Gonzales other than that he was partner in a law firm before jointing the Bush camp in various capacities, but I doubt that the Gonzales family is about to be taken into the Bush Family Circle of Friends any time soon. I mean, it's one thing to let these people work for you. It's another to actually let them be equal. They probably wouldn't be comfortable in that portion of society anyway.
And I'm not quite sure that this notion of "personal wealth" is as important as we... ummm... lower sectors of society might think. Wealth, to be of maximum use, must be considered as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Wealth, as a tool, brings with it control over many other tools, and it is the use to which the entire arsenal can be put which is important. This also explains most of the changes that have been put into place in the past six years.
Those who have grown their own wealth tend to see that as their accomplishment. Those who have inherrited wealth tend to "understand the true value of wealth", namely that it is to be used to control things, and the rest of the population is used, bought and sold much as you or I would furnature or kitchen appliances.
So while Gonzales might be a necessary part of a long range plan, I doubt that his financial status will enter into the equation. If the powers that be consider him to be more of an asset on the Supreme Court than as Attorney General, he will be nominated. And, as he's proven to be a "good little soldier" in the past, he'll do as he's told.
LA
Post a Comment
I know very little about Gonzales other than that he was partner in a law firm before jointing the Bush camp in various capacities, but I doubt that the Gonzales family is about to be taken into the Bush Family Circle of Friends any time soon. I mean, it's one thing to let these people work for you. It's another to actually let them be equal. They probably wouldn't be comfortable in that portion of society anyway.
And I'm not quite sure that this notion of "personal wealth" is as important as we... ummm... lower sectors of society might think. Wealth, to be of maximum use, must be considered as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Wealth, as a tool, brings with it control over many other tools, and it is the use to which the entire arsenal can be put which is important. This also explains most of the changes that have been put into place in the past six years.
Those who have grown their own wealth tend to see that as their accomplishment. Those who have inherrited wealth tend to "understand the true value of wealth", namely that it is to be used to control things, and the rest of the population is used, bought and sold much as you or I would furnature or kitchen appliances.
So while Gonzales might be a necessary part of a long range plan, I doubt that his financial status will enter into the equation. If the powers that be consider him to be more of an asset on the Supreme Court than as Attorney General, he will be nominated. And, as he's proven to be a "good little soldier" in the past, he'll do as he's told.
LA
<< Home
