In order to estalblish this it has always been important to first establish the national security state, remember NSA data mining irregularities in breach of the 4th amendment date from before 9-11. But to justify it as an ongoing project you need enemies. Right from February 2001 Cheney was storming around trying to start fires in the US' relationships with other major powers. China and russia were considered possibles, and then they had the gift of a real enemy after 9-11. Fear stalked the land and they were able to push through a whole raft of policies and behaviours that completely co-opted entire branches of the Government into wholly-owned creatures of the Rove-Cheney fear machine.
The entire "Axis of Evil" scam was used to justify eternal war. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, N Korea...the list of countries they had lined up for "persuasion" was impressive and by no means correlated with energy imperatives. they were just chosen as credible "bad guys" Americans could be persauded to take out.
Hermann goerring remains instructive on this point;-
"Naturally the common people don't want war; [...]but it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
And that is what they did with the never-ending war on terror. Of course it was handled ineptly, but in many ways that served their purpose. A war that ends tidily and quickly isn't as useful to their purposes. And that purpose is the creation of the national security state with the civilian population in a permanent state of militarised emergency.
But the "War on Terra" began to flag in the public imagination. So a new enemy was needed. So Sakashvilli was "activated", ie persuaded that all he needed to do to get a nationalistic push was to sort out the natives in breakaway regions, don't worry about the ruskies, we've got your back etc etc.
And the russkies dutifully obliged Cheney stirring up in the west, courtesy of the compliant corporate media whores, images of Soviet union, prague '68. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
And what do frightened populations do when they feel fear. They run to the right. To the guy who promises military mayhem on their behalf. Vote John McCain.
Oh, look he's gone up 2 points in a week. It works. Expect more of this before november.
It's not about energy. It's about the Imperial Presidency and Cheney's wet dream of the last 35 years to trample the Constitution under a hundred thousand marching jackboots for a 1000 years. keep to the Fen Causeway
I see it as a "US Inc" strategy purely for private "Big Oil" and "Big Money" profit, with Bush as Non-Executive Chairman.
Iraq was a hostile takeover, purely for its oil resources. Unfortunately, US Inc fucked up the merger, so Iran did not follow.
Cheney's corporate strategy has failed, big time. He rolled the dice, and lost. I think that the crucial shift came in the middle of last year, and I see Iraq as the US's Suez. ie the moment when the US's creditors called a halt to US adventurism, and in particularly vetoed any hare-brained scheme to attack Iran. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
All of Bush' behaviour has been about testing the limits of what can be done and about setting precedents. Starting a war in contravention of international law, the jailing of a US citizen without trial or recourse to legal advice (Joseph Padilla). Declaring a region where the rule of law is entirely absent for the purposes of torture. Spying on Americans in breach of the 4th amendment, passing a Patriot Act which pretty much shreds the Bill of rights.
All in pursuit of the National Security state which is a necessary precusor of the Imperial Presidency.
As for the "US Inc" corporate state you fault, they are one and the same, as discussed here in ATimes a while back
a an almost-regal function. This is not my belief but one I have seen written and documented on various sites from dKos through FireDoglake to The Sideshow. He has a long history of wanting a "Unitary Executive
As contradictory as it may seem, fascist dictatorship was made possible because of the flawed notion of freedom which held sway during the era of laissez-faire capitalism in the early twentieth century. It was the liberals of that era that clamored for unfettered personal and economic freedom, no matter what the cost to society. Such untrammeled freedom is not suitable to civilized humans. It is the freedom of the jungle. In other words, the strong have more of it than the weak. It is a notion of freedom which is inherently violent, because it is enjoyed at the expense of others. Such a notion of freedom legitimizes each and every increase in the wealth and power of those who are already powerful, regardless of the misery that will be suffered by others as a result. The use of the state to limit such "freedom" was denounced by the laissez-faire liberals of the early twentieth century. The use of the state to protect such "freedom" was fascism. Just as monopoly is the ruin of the free market, fascism is the ultimate degradation of liberal capitalism. [...] Consider the words of Thurman Arnold, head of the antitrust division of the US Department of Justice in 1939: "Germany, of course, has developed within 15 years from an industrial autocracy into a dictatorship. Most people are under the impression that the power of Hitler was the result of his demagogic blandishments and appeals to the mob ... Actually, Hitler holds his power through the final and inevitable development of the uncontrolled tendency to combine in restraint of trade." Arnold made his point even more clearly in a 1939 address to the American Bar Association: "Germany presents the logical end of the process of cartelization. From 1923 to 1935 cartelization grew in Germany until finally that nation was so organized that everyone had to belong either to a squad, a regiment or a brigade in order to survive. The names given to these squads, regiments or brigades were cartels, trade associations, unions and trusts. Such a distribution system could not adjust its prices. It needed a general with quasi-military authority who could order the workers to work and the mills to produce. Hitler named himself that general. Had it not been Hitler it would have been someone else.
Consider the words of Thurman Arnold, head of the antitrust division of the US Department of Justice in 1939: "Germany, of course, has developed within 15 years from an industrial autocracy into a dictatorship. Most people are under the impression that the power of Hitler was the result of his demagogic blandishments and appeals to the mob ... Actually, Hitler holds his power through the final and inevitable development of the uncontrolled tendency to combine in restraint of trade."
Arnold made his point even more clearly in a 1939 address to the American Bar Association: "Germany presents the logical end of the process of cartelization. From 1923 to 1935 cartelization grew in Germany until finally that nation was so organized that everyone had to belong either to a squad, a regiment or a brigade in order to survive. The names given to these squads, regiments or brigades were cartels, trade associations, unions and trusts. Such a distribution system could not adjust its prices. It needed a general with quasi-military authority who could order the workers to work and the mills to produce. Hitler named himself that general. Had it not been Hitler it would have been someone else.
Cheney was part of that group that Bush I labelled as "the crazies in the basement" who were gung-ho to take Baghdad in "Desert Storm". He always wants war as emergencies pre-dispose legislatures towards the directions he wants to go.
That war is profitable for the sort of corporations where Cheney rests his investments is merely a secondary benefit. It's largely beside the point. He wants Presidents who become King Emperor, where he is always the preferred advisor to the Royal line. A dictatorship, miltarised and fascistic, so that he doesn't have to endure anything other than abased compliance to his whims. keep to the Fen Causeway
