The Running of the Hamsters
Most public discussion of Iraq frames things with an implicit assumption that the administration's objective has been to "improve" the situation, or bring "stability," or "win." Thus, careful exegesis of administration pronouncements leads to rational arguments for withdrawal. That's all well and good — important for creating a national consensus against the war — but overlooks the possibility, indeed probability, that the administration has achieved pretty much what it wanted. Should we take administration pronouncements on Iraq objectives at face value when in virtually every other policy area the administration spews nothing but lies? When a gang of kleptocrats demonstrates repeatedly their power to mutilate the Constitution should they be given the benefit of the doubt on anything? Is the Iraq fiasco merely a "mistake" or something else?
The argument for decent intentions flows, I think, from the fact that so many people in government are working so hard. A lot of people outside government and, indeed, a lot of those inside it can't wrap their minds around the idea that crooked politicians manipulate the bureaucracy just as they manipulate politics, the press, or whatever else they please. That it's all part of the same racket. We're neglecting the classical question, "Cui bono?"
But stop and think about it for a moment: If the Tyrant and his gang announced that they wanted an indefinitely long-term war with Iraq in order to break apart Israel's enemies, to boost oil companies' profits (and secondarily lock in U.S. supplies), and to transform the presidency into a dictatorship, well, nobody would accept it. Not the public, and especially not the professional bureaucrats, including uniformed bureaucrats. So what's a Tyrant to do? The public can be hoodwinked for a considerable time through control of the media, but taming the bureaucrats becomes complicated: it's necessary to keep a large majority busy spinning their wheels while co-opting to varying degrees a few of the smartest at the top. As it turns out even this requires a surprising amount of work — more, perhaps, than the Cheney-Bush gang now has the energy for given the scale of their ambitions, at least not without inviting confrontations with Congress of the sort that we're seeing in the U.S. attorneys scandal.
In foreign policy we've seen this process at work before, to mention a few instances for example, in successive administrations' unwillingness to treat Israel in an even-handed way, in Clinton's desire to punish Yugoslavia for not acceding to internationalist demands, and in Bush's deliberate revival of a Cold War with Russia. Where the overt adoption of narrowly self-interested objectives would fail, co-opting and channeling the processes and institutions that lead to desired outcomes becomes necessary.
It's perfectly summed up by a phrase I learned during the first Gulf War when I was the desk officer for oil security at the State Department: "keep the hamsters busy spinning in their wheels" and out of the way...
To be honest, it's probably too much to expect very many to challenge the administration on the grounds that it is deliberately creating chaos, but the possibility nevertheless should be borne in mind.
« 2007 Podcast Awards Nomination | Main | Iapetus »





































Comments
I tend to agree with this assessment as does Greg Palast. He says the point was to increase the price of oil, which makes more sense than most other explanations.
I was really shocked by the article by Paul Craig Roberts on impeachment today. Not only is he calling for impeachment, but he clearly believes this administration is capable of "false flag" terrorism against its own citizens. It's not often you see someone with conservative credentials go this far.
We are, as Roberts says, in desperate straits, and the Democrats are making excuses or taking baby steps.
Posted by: Charles Dunaway | July 17, 2007 5:03 PM