Shock and Awe

According to an article in today's paper, there have been "accidental electrocutions of at least 12 service members in Iraq", the latest having taken place in a shower, and blamed on improper grounding of an electric pump by -- guess who -- KBR Inc., a former subsidiary of Halliburton. This reminds us that the soldier is at the bottom of the food chain in this war (as in all wars), with the war profiteers at the top -- yes, even above the politicians, who, ultimately, seem to feel that their mission in life is to do the profiteers' bidding, and insure a healthy bottom line (and, who knows, a cushy job after leaving government service -- not that that implies anything about current members of _this_ administration, ahem). It's interesting to think about what result a comparable level of negligence would have for a stateside firm -- if, say, the victims were civilians. We can make a pretty good guess based on what has happened to other firms when they have shown blatant disregard for the welfare of their customers. But a war zone is also a lawless zone, where no one is held accountable and the loot you manage to carry away is yours to keep. 'Twer ever thus.

Now, I have no problem with an American corporation looking to the bottom line -- if, that is, they are in a truly competitive situation, and subject to laws of supply and demand, i.e. the free choice of consumers. But non-competitive contracts based on cronyism do not exactly meet this criterion. They represent, rather, get-rich-quick schemes carried out on the backs of the taxpayers and, as we see in this example, at the expense of soldier's lives.

Another thing these incidents remind us of is the steadily-eroding rationale for the war. A recent National Intelligence Estimate exposed the WMD hoax, and a current Pentagon report has shot down, once and for all, the "Al Qaeda connection". So what remains? Well, the "spreading democracy" argument was transparently bogus from day one, so it can hardly come as a shock to anyone that that particular piece of the mission has been blown off completely. And as for oil -- well, if we went over there to steal their oil, where the hell is it? I want to see it at the gas station down the street. I want it in my car's gas tank. And it want it to be cheap -- not priced higher than ever the way it is now. So you can cross oil off the list as well. Then how about -- getting rid of a nasty dictator and his skuzzy family? OK, done. Now let's leave. Oh, wait -- there is another piece, and it's called "promoting peace in the Near East", which is another way of saying "keep Iraq and all the other Islamic states out of Israel's hair" (that's assuming they were all primed to _get_ in Israel's hair, which seems debatable given that Israel has enough nukes to pave over the entire Islamic world with a few feet of glass). I guess we can at least claim the desired result, even if our efforts had nothing to do with it.

Then, of course, there's the thing that is always Job One in cases like this, and that's saving face -- currently termed "staying the course" or "not to cut and run". The response to this one ought to be -- exactly how much "face" do we have left to save? The answer is -- damn little. The Bush administration is already doomed to be relegated to the American History Hall of Shame -- especially because, with each new failure, the president gets more delusional and the vice president more belligerent. I'll be surprised if they don't decide to attack _Canada_ sometime between now and January 2009.

So apparently "face", and reputation, and legacy, are not all that important either. In fact, the only thing about this war that is arguably "working" is that it's making a lot of people very rich. And that, in itself, may be sufficient justification -- retrospectively -- for having invaded Iraq. It is certainly sufficient justification for staying over there; it must be, because all the other reasons combined no longer suffice, even assuming they ever did. So yes -- if your only motive is profit, and you care not a whit for the soldiers, or the American economy, or our reputation, or even for the political futures of the prominent members of the administration, then, yes, the war is a resounding success and you will do anything to keep it from ending. You will not, in other words, be so foolish as to "give peace a chance".

Are we starting to get a clue as to what's behind the so-called "quagmire"? Once we accept the possibility that it's not an accident, and not an "unanticipated consequence", then many things become clear. Among these are -- we will be in Iraq at least through the end of the current administration, and if there is any change it will be to escalate the war to include Iran -- or Syria -- or who knows where else. And, anyone hoping for a quick reversal of policy under a Democratic president in 2009 is smoking the wrong socks. All indications are that the fix is in, and that they have already been bought off. Of course, the best solution, as far as the war profiteers are concerned, would be to have McCain get elected, since that would provide a seamless transition and at least four more years of war -- and windfall profits -- guaranteed.

What's amazing about all this is the really big picture, namely that the war profiteers and the American people are, ultimately, all in the same economic boat. Or are they planning to take all the money out of the country and deposit it in Swiss banks, after converting it to some other currency that is not dropping like a lead balloon? I guess it's possible -- it certainly happened in World Wars I and II. We see the "multinationals" more and more moving not only their labor force out of the country, but their headquarters as well. So the U.S. really could wind up being a kind of colony of the multinationals -- good for military (and mercenary) manpower and raw materials, but not much else. And if we don't rise up soon and do something, we can't complain when it comes to pass.