How Nuts Am I?

Interesting thesis. To the extent the conservative movement and their stranglehold on the American government is for sale to the highest bidder, who has more at stake than foreign governments? - Matt

Every now and then I come back to the idea that the "conservative movement" may have been manipulated by non-American interests.  From What If It's More Than Corruption?,

To what extent is it possible that today's Republican Party scandals are not just about traditional corruption, but instead are the result of manipulation by foreign interests, masquerading as corruption and ideological cultism? China, Iran, ??? The neo-cons are persuaded by ideology and cooked-up intelligence to go to war in Iraq. Iran ends up with Shia Iraq as a client state, with its oil resources at its disposal, for sale to China. America weakened, its industries no longer competitive, it's infrastructure crumbling. Who benefits?
Think about the harm the neo-con "conservative movement" ideology has done to our country. We're left with massive debt, fractured institutions, a dangerously divided public, destruction of public infrastructure, outsourcing of our manufacturing and technological base, weakened public education system, -- the list just goes on and on. Was this just blind cultist ideology? Who benefits?
So how is the neo-con dream playing out?  Russia and China benefit from having the U.S. bogged down in perpetual war against an invisible "enemy" many thousands of miles away.  But "Radical Islam" just happens to be their enemy, not ours. It is a disruptive social movement on or inside their borders, not ours, but here we are fighting their war for them.  Meanwhile China winds up with the manufacturing that used to be done here and holding the paper for massive U.S. debt.  We spend our budget on military while their money is freed up for massive infrastructure investment.  Iran winds up with Iraq as a client state.

But where does the U.S. benefit, except in the minds of the ideological cultists?

Here is what got me thinking about this again today:  From the intro to an interview with John Le Carre, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,

...he briefly explains an episode of Britain's history wherein they instigated proxy warfare from behind the scenes pitting Muslim against Hindu.  Has Russia done the same from behind the scenes by pitting "radical Islam" against the US?
And from the interview:
"In Britain, because of Empire, because of the imperial history, because of the necessity of keeping trade routes open over vast distance, we learned to divide princelings against each other.  To inspire Muslims to fight Hindu.  We were wicked in terms of colonial manipulation, because we had to proxy wars.  And, we did this through the collecting and the distribution of a really fine quantity of intelligence.
How hard would it be to figure out that the "conservative movement" was for sale, and take advantage?  What controls, accountability, oversight, checks-and-balances are in place to make sure things like this don't happen?  Oh, wait, those are the things the "conservative movement" got rid of first.

Cross-posted at Seeing the Forest.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

12 Comments

I had to think about your question for a minute
Assuming your question was not rhetorical and giving you the benefit of the doubt, your thesis is nuts, but the results of the neo-con's war has had exactly the results you described.

In this diary by Descrates he covered a critique last year of Horowitz's book, Clash of Civilizations, by Edward Said. Here is a book review ofAmerica Alone. Like David Horowitz, the neo-cons have their ideological roots in Socialism.

Since the authors of America Alone are unabashed conservative hawks, you have to wonder if Bush and the neo-cons are really as incompetent as they have demonstrated, or if they may actually be actively scheming against America's national interest.

Bin Laden, Russia, China and Iran are all benefitting from Bush's war. Iraq is arguably the greatest military blunder in American hhistory. Considering the fact that not a single strategic decision by the neo-cons on how to proceed in Iraq has worked out, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that one or more of them are double agents.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-30 02:23PM | 0 recs
Misunderstood
I'm not saying they are conciously working for other contries, I'm saying maybe they are dupes being played.
by davej 2005-12-30 02:49PM | 0 recs
Got it
It's hard to say if they are being duped or if they are achieving exactly what they set out to achieve, but did not anticipate the negative reaction of the American people.

If you consider the neo-con goals I listed in a comment to Descrates diary:

There are two major prongs to their foreign policy: (1) strategic control of the largest oil reserves outside of Saudi Arabia and (2) providing military support for Israel.

They have achieved everything they set out to do, if there had not been a backlash from the American people and America could leave troops in Iraq for fifty years. As far as the neo-cons are concerned, Iraq has been a win/win for everybody.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-30 04:41PM | 0 recs
Not Nuts at All
Foreign Governments are the biggest players on K Street.  With the possible exception of huge interests like pharmacuticals, oil, AARP, the US Chamber, gambling -- nobody spends more than foreign governments.  And yes, years ago, I was a registered foreign agent for the Government of Mexico and Norway.  During the NAFTA fight Mexico retained something like 20 PR/lobbying firms.  Foreign Governments are the most valued clients of US PR/lobbying firms and it's been that way since at least the mid-1980's.  I've been out of K Street since the mid-1990's.  My guess is that China is now the single biggest player, that is just a guess.  Other big players are Canada, Brazil, Germany and Japan.  India & Russia are important too.
by howardpark 2005-12-30 05:36PM | 0 recs
Indeed
My wife has been saying for years that the whole Bush family are Manchurian candidates left out in the cold by the end of the Cold War, still robotically pursuing their objective of destroying the USA.
by jlmccreery 2005-12-30 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Indeed
Did you steal a copy of Dave's manuscript for his novel?
by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-30 07:01PM | 0 recs
This article
just out from WaPo:

An Extensive Web of Financial Ties

Might be worth a read for you.

by Andrew C White 2005-12-30 06:18PM | 0 recs
Tom DeLay is a Russian mole
You're not nuts after all Dave

Cross-posted from Seeing the Forest, Russians pumping millions into the "U.S. Family Network:

Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman's former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay (R-Tex.).

And at dkos, DeLay bought off by Russians.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-31 03:23AM | 0 recs
Yes, you are nuts
and I think this thesis gives the American electorate and the Democratic party more credit than it deserves.  Makes us victims rather than willing accomplices.

Just my opinion, but I see more of a perfect storm model....fear plus economic manipulation of the housing market in order to keep a flailing economy afloat plus voters seeking security bought off in order to keep gas in their SUV and 600 channels on their televisions.

by ksh 2005-12-31 06:12AM | 0 recs
No; Not Nuts.
I think there is something to this idea. My take on it is that these neocons see themselves as "Masters of the Universe," and as such, actually despise any dependence on one given "homeland." Their fellow citizens are not us at all -- their fellow citizens are people everywhere who are rich like them. Why should they care what happens to their deluded, gas-guzzling "compatriots"?
by blues 2005-12-31 06:32AM | 0 recs
Historical Parallels
I'm relatively new to the political scene, so I don't have the historical perspective I really need to judge this theory.

But there seems to be a lot of parallels between the Nixon admin and Bush admin, from views on presidential authority to actual players like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others.

Is there a parallel between this theory and the Nixon years? Was there an equivalent to PNAC and who  benefited? What's the pattern, and if they match, what's the likelyhood that the match is coincidental rather than intentional?

Or is this really a unique situation?

by gina 2005-12-31 07:29AM | 0 recs
inspired, but wrong
China already has us in a stranglehold, so it's hard to see why they'd want to tighten it just now.  It's still possible that we will emerge from Iraq with control of most of the oil, and that supposedly would be our trump against China.

Russia supposedly still fears any form of Islam near its borders and now it will have two major Shia states to the south, so I dont see the advantage of that.

The theory that Iran used Chalabi or Israel or others to get us to get rid of Saddam makes more sense to me.

Most writers on US policy in the Middle East would say that Bush's military invasion is just a kind of reckless acceleration of long-standing US designs on Iraq.

by catalan 2005-12-31 11:04AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads