I have been writing here for years about the Bush Administration's openly declared intent to
arm and fund violent militia groups all over the world, especially in "inaccessible" places where the US cannot operate openly.
Hersh has confirmed this "strategy" several times in his reporting.
There are really no words to describe how morally depraved and
monumentally stupid this policy is. It is of course not all that
surprising that it springs from a family whose political fortunes are
founded, at least in part, from the financial fortunes it reaped from
helping build the Nazi military-industrial complex; a family that continued trading with the Nazis even after Americans were in battle against Hitler's forces.
The Bushes and their outriders
have always been attuned to the kind of brutal realpolitik that is
willing -- at times eager -- to see American blood shed in order to
advance their elitist agenda. (Which they have of course internalized
as being identical with the "national interest.")
But as we've also noted many times, this political "philosophy" is by
no means unique to the Bush Family faction. It is resolutely
bipartisan, and deeply embedded in the mindset of the American
Establishment. The Bushes are nothing but second-rate camp followers,
empty shells and non-entities, originating nothing, ignorant and
cynical in equal measure, their only unusual trait being how open they
are in their scorn for the worthless rabble and the bullshit
Constitution that the crypto-Commies like Madison and Jefferson foisted
on the proper rulers of the country. Otherwise, they simply regurgitate
the unprocessed prejudices, unexamined assumptions and vulgar ambitions
of the clique that spawned them.
Of course, at times the idiot George W. Bush and the criminally
ignorant crew that surrounds him have brought the inherent lawlessness,
greed, brutality and incompetence of the American elite to what seem
like new heights -- although even the sick-making murder of the Iraq
campaign has still not approached the genocidal fury of, say, the
bipartisan bombing of Indochina, and the millions of dead that the
"best and the brightest" left behind there. Nor have Bush's domestic
repression and flagrant abuse of authority -- as bad as they are -- yet
approached the toxic and all-pervasive level of the "Red Scares"
launched by Democratic icons Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman. (Joe
McCarthy merely took the ball that Truman put into play and ran with
it.) And sufficient unto the day is the trouble thereof; the crimes of
the Bush Administration are not any less heinous -- and the people they
have murdered are not any less dead -- just because these crimes are
not some aberration of the idiot and his crew but are instead
continuations and at times accelerations of long-standing Establishment
thinking and policy.
But with each passing decade, the technological tools of repression and militarism grow more overpowering and far-reaching.
With each passing decade, the pernicious aftereffects and
blowback from past depredations build up and compound, breeding new
evils. With each passing decade, the societal rot engendered by the
rapacity of the elite spreads deeper, eating away at the foundation of
the Republic and the fabric of our communities, and weakening or
destroying the social and institutional counterbalances to unchecked
greed and ambition.
Thus in one sense it doesn't matter if the Bush Faction is any more or
less criminal and destructive than other administrations. The world in
which they are blundering around killing people is far more unstable
and dangerous than before, because it is filled with the compounded
evil and folly of previous times. For instance, there are more nuclear
powers now, as nations seek to emulate the strength, prestige and
dominance of the only nation that has ever committed mass murder with
nuclear weapons (or to defend themselves against that nation). And
there far more weapons available to armed groups than at any time in
world history -- again, in no small part due to the blind greed of the
elites of the "civilized" world who have promoted weapons sales with
the shameless avidity of carnie barkers for decades. A couple of
goobers with a grudge against some government can now buy .50- caliber
rifles at a flea market and knock airliners out of the sky.
The spread of weapons -- and weapons technology (not to mention
the refinement of terrorist techniques, such as those taught by the CIA
to the jihadists back in the 80s) -- has broken the monopoly of armed
force once enjoyed by states.
Together with the spread of nuclear arms technology, this
development means that no great power can simply impose its will hither
and yon without facing the prospect of substantial consequences from
"asymmetric actors."
And today, the time lag between a criminal policy and its consequences
grows much shorter all the time -- just as the virulence of that
response is potentially much greater. For example, the United States
engineered an illegal and stupid "regime change" in Iran in 1953, but
did not have to face any direct consequences of this folly for more
than a quarter of a century, and even these consequences were
relatively limited. But there is general agreement that an attempt at
"regime change" in Iran now would result in horrific consequences,
immediately, including the possible collapse of the oil-based global
economy, Shiite uprisings throughout the Middle East (especially
against American forces in Iraq), "asymmetric" retaliation at American
targets both at home and abroad and other pleasantries. (Similarly, the
lag time between supporting the global jihad – which began in 1979
under Democrat Jimmy Carter – and the first fruit of that blowback, the
first bombing of the World Trade Center, was just 14 years. How short
will be the blowback from this latest arming and funding of al Qaeda
and other Sunni extremists? A few years? A few months? Or right now –
as many of these groups are allied with the Iraqi insurgents?)
And so, beyond the inherent immorality of supporting al Qaeda (yet again); beyond the i
nherent immorality of fomenting terrorist strikes
inside Iran (and elsewhere); beyond the inherent – and downright
Hitlerian – immorality of invading Iraq and possibly invading Iran, we
have the simple fact that in today's world, the United States simply
cannot "get away" with such extravagant stupidities anymore, for any
length of time whatsoever. The rot is too deep, the compound interest
is too high and the consequences too dire and immediate.
Not that any of this will make the slightest bit of difference to the
idiot elitists in the White House now, of course.