Print

You have not viewed any products recently.

 

America’s ‘Bananas’ Middle East Policy

View all posts from this blog

By:John Seiler | November 14, 2014

In Woody Allen’s farce “Bananas,” he’s being air-dropped into a Central American banana republic to foment a revolution. On the plane are two CIA agents who say this time they’re backing both sides of the revolution to make sure America is on the winning side.

As usual in modern America, reality has overtaken farce. From Jason Ditz on Antiwar.com:

“between attacks on ISIS, Nusra, and Islamic Front fighters, and now the Assad government, the U.S. is fighting materially all of the combat forces inside Syria at the same time, even the ones that are aligned with their publicly stated goals.”

That’s four different sides the U.S. government is fighting, which means at the same time it’s also siding with the four different sides. It’s the fulfillment of much of the Neocons’ dream for the Middle East, and the world.

And it’s getting worse for America’s sons – and daughters – in uniform. The Wall Street Journal reported, “WASHINGTON—Top Pentagon officials testifying on Capitol Hill on Thursday outlined conditions that they said could prompt a recommendation for greater U.S. involvement in combat in Iraq.” It’s what during the Vietnam War was called “escalation.” Given we’re now at war with four sides, even “greater U.S. involvement” can be expected.

Ideally, the Neocons would want the U.S. to attack all 200 countries in the world, and the hundreds of factions in many of the countries. Doing so would require mobilization on the order of World War II, when 16 million Americans served in the military, two-thirds draftees.

This is 2014, so that number would be doubled with the higher population; then doubled again because now girls serve in combat with men. So the Neocons would draft or enlist 64 million Americans for their global jihad against everybody.

The economy would have to be locked down into “war socialism,” with all production for the war efforts, civilians drafted into war production, everything rationed and dissidents locked up in camps. It would be the ideal come true of the first Neocon, Trotsky.

That also would help Halliburton and other military-industrial-complex firms that have been struggling. The Journal also reported, “Halliburton Co. is in talks to buy Baker Hughes Inc., a deal that would help the big oil-field services companies contend with falling oil prices.”

Former Halliburton boss Dick Cheney no longer is vice president of the USA, but it’s still true, as Country Joe warbled, “There’s plenty good money to be made, supplyin’ the Army with the tools of the trade.” 

Comments

 

 
tjf
RFD
11/17/2014 02:24 PM
 

  Setting aside the question of the dual loyalties--if dual is le mot juste--of the neoconservatives, I used to be surprised by how easily leftist peaceniks and their children became global warriors. The answer is obvious, of course: They and their ilk have always supported global revolution and the powers that drive revolution. When those powers were Russia, China, Cuba, and Cambodia, for example, they supported them, but now that the greatest revolutionary power in the world, bent on overthrowing all stable regimes as well as the natural human order, is the US, they inevitably support every imaginable military action undertaken by either party.

 
 
David
Rockford
11/17/2014 02:56 PM
 

  The article starts off pretty strong but then ends up fizzling when the ultimate end of it is about the USA starting wars with every nation on the planet. Would like to have seen a more realistic review of the exaggeration. Would also like to see the author account for the many Representatives who oppose US global warfare and a true accounting of who is really behind it all. Its easy enough for the author to blame Dick Cheney and Halliburton and so on, but there is no mention of known groups that openly advocate this sort of warfare. Would also like to see the author address the global ban on firearms and the inability of people to adequately defend themselves. Its easy for the author to live in a nation that fiercely protects our Second Amendment. The author is safe here. Its not so easy to become an advocate for nullifying the UN global war on firearms and the byproduct of that war on firearms which leaves the terrorists, thugs, criminals in the driver's seat. An armed population is a safe population and that armed population will ultimately defend themselves and will not need the American guns as our excuse and or reason to involve ourselves. A prime example is the war in Kurdistan which covers four nations, Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. All four have Kurds living there who want an independent state. The Kurds have been one of the most persecuted people groups in history. They are a very productive and friendly to the West people, yet they are denied weapons with which to protect themselves. So America decides to intervene. Once again in our global jihad. Its one thing to throw darts at those we believe deserve critique, and I agree with the author, America's foreign policy amounts to global jihad, but the author should also lay blame where it is really deserved and offer some sort of a solution. Global Second Amendment rights would be a good start.

 
 
Print

You have not viewed any products recently.

 

To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.