re Reasons for War

[pynchonoid]

Back to this popular P-list thread.  This guy says
Bush got exactly what he wanted:

[...] No matter where you look, the US is portrayed as
having made a royal mess of the post-war transition.
To suppose they've bungled what they meant to do is
both uncharitable and unwise. Yes, there's
no doubt the Bushmen lacked a serious plan for
restoring services and forming an interim government,
but that begs the real question. Did they want
one? (Remember the straight-faced assurance, prior to
the invasion, that the Pentagon had spent three weeks
on postwar planning? "Rebuilding" Iraq and setting it
on its own feet again was the furthest thing from
their minds. They had no such intention.)

I think the administration has done exactly what it
set out to do, which was to seize the country rapidly
and then unveil by degrees its plan for a long-range
military and business presence there. No central
government? No problem. In fact, that may be the whole
idea. This passage, sent along by BW reader Peter Lee
from an essay he'd written, nicely sums up the case
for managed chaos in Iraq: "The neocon think-tank
recipe for Iraq--a federated sack of sand without
control of its own military, security, or intelligence
portfolios--is seemingly ripped from the cookbook
Ariel Sharon wrote for Palestine.  In both instances,
the intent is to impose a weak, compromised leader
conspicuously beholden to a foreign power, thereby
guaranteeing an impotent, illegitimate, and insecure
state providing ample and continuous pretexts for
foreign interference and control." [...] 

<http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/sperry/2003/05/21>





=====
<http://www.pynchonoid.blogspot.com/>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com