Benefits of Global Destabilization?

RSS 2.0
 
More articles
 
  Benefits of Global Destabilization?April 04, 2006 16:30 George W. Bush should be very proud of himself for winding down his 8 years in office with 1) Iraq on the brink of civil war, 2) Afghanistan deteriorating into sectarian politics, 3) the India-Pakistan relationship deteriorating because of a proposed US-India extra-NPT nuclear deal, 4) Turkey being accepted into the EU with US help, 5) and two countries, Iran and Venezuela, developing weapons and armies specifically to counter a perceived threat of US aggression.

Did Republican voters really sign up for such global destabilization in 2000 and 2004? Actually, Republicans believed they were signing up for a golden age of US world military dominance, but even Donald Rumsfeld, neocon poster child, has recently been quoted as stating that the US can't go it alone. Whoops.

What's to be gained through all of this meddling in world affairs? The obvious answer is that the US is 'safer' if her 'enemies' are preoccupied with local conflicts. This is a time-honored Machiavellian approach to managing conflict outside of your country. Make sure the other guys are busy. The problem is that in this day and age, India, Pakistan, Israel, and other threatened states possess nuclear arms or other devastating weapons of mass destruction. The policy of promoting destabilization is a short term battle winner, but loses the long term war of ideology and hearts. Cheney-Rumsfeld must know this.

So then what is the driver for such mass destabilization? It's gotta be money. Oil prices are 5-7 times as high as they were during the Clinton administration. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, BP, Frist, and Blair all own stock in oil companies that benefit from high oil prices. It's painful, but true... our revered world leaders are greedy and seek to sew pain and suffering solely for the purpose of making a profit.