|
Rant. Muse. Eat. Sleep. Recycle. |
|
Previous Posts
Fellow Bloggers
Links |
Thursday, November 30, 2006 Who's a neo-con?
As Iraq smolders and Dems belly up to a horror that they insist they can fix, I've had some conversations that have caused me to scratch my head. A person whose intelligence I respect in terms of world politics recently told me that I was wrong in my belief that Henry Kissinger is a neo-con. Even though, I clarified that I didn't see him as the founder of this particular group of neo-cons, but more as a spiritual godfather who signed off on a 1970s-era plan to "colonize" the Middle East (a neo-con wet dream), I was still far off base, according to my acquaintance. Neo-cons don't care for Kissinger and he was never a part of that school of thought.
'Now, that's surprising,' I thought. I'm going to bare my soul, here. I HATE war. Despise it because it has been harnessed as a societal modification tool, in my eyes, by sociopaths with big bank accounts. I cringe whenever I hear that old saw that 'War is good for business.' After all, say those same sociopaths, it decreases the population of undesirables, imparts more authority to government, and sells the shit out of tanks, machine guns, nukes and other stocking stuffers. And, as an aside to all of those who bring up WWII, I'd like to ask you, 'Which "just war" followed that up?' OK. It's established I hate war. The "baring my soul" part has to do with whether there can be a positive outcome that can play itself out in the midst of all this Iraq tragedy. I can't see it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. The Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other and us, we're killing both of them and nothing seems within reach of resolution. A hundred years from now, will some future generations say it was the right thing to do because Iraq is the world's most stable democracy? Or, is that simply conservative obfuscation meant to justify murder of all kinds? After having killed something like 670,000 Iraqi men, women, children and babies in this conflict, either directly or indirectly, I guess I'm crying out for something positive to come out of all this and that "100 years" line looks pretty good at times. So, getting back to Kissinger. I was appalled to see him consulted because for years I've considered him damn near a war criminal. I've never seen his involvement in Viet Nam as anything but politically self-serving and anti-human. Now that Bush is picking his brain, I am discouraged from thinking anything positive can come from this unless we simply pack it up and leave. Why? Because erroneously or not, I group Kissinger with neo-cons for these reasons - 1. his fetish for military interventions and 2. his involvement in a plan to remake the Middle East as a U.S. protectorate. If he's helping shape current policy, I can't imagine that he's going to recommend any kind of pullout, particularly with a lame duck who has already done the heavy lifting for him and put the Army in place. He could surprise me, but, honestly, I think my friend was wrong and Kissinger is the neo-con's neo-con. And, if he proceeds as I think he proceeds, he will be a hero to that group. And, more of a villain to me. 2 Comments:
Want to Post a Comment? |
