Newshoggers Comments
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak. I believed another Vietnam could be avoided with defined missions and the best armaments in the world.
It made no difference.
We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you would like to read how this happens please see:
http://www.vanityfair.com/
politi...spyagency200703
Through a combination of public apathy and threats by the MIC we have let the SYSTEM get too large. It is now a SYSTEMIC problem and the SYSTEM is out of control. Government and industry are merging and that is very dangerous.
There is no conspiracy. The SYSTEM has gotten so big that those who make it up and run it day to day in industry and government simply are perpetuating their existance.
The politicians rely on them for details and recommendations because they cannot possibly grasp the nuances of the environment and the BIG SYSTEM.
So, the system has to go bust and then be re-scaled, fixed and re-designed to run efficiently and prudently, just like any other big machine that runs poorly or becomes obsolete or dangerous.
This situation will right itself through trauma. I see a government ENRON on the horizon, with an associated house cleaning.
The next president will come and go along with his appointees and politicos. The event to watch is the collapse of the MIC.
For more details see:
http://rosecoveredglasses.blogsp...-
armaments.html
Hey Ken. Long time no see. Thanks for the input.
back in August there was quite a bit of talk about how the UK should pull out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan, as the problem posed by the instability of that nation posed a far greater chance of destabilising the entire region. This is simply a matter of basic logic even if you take what are real threats only into the equation.
"What is more dangerous, a nation without nuclear weapons bordered by two invaded and chaotic states, or a nation that has a large population supportive of the invaded nation's resistance fighters, and armed with a supply of nukes?"
For any but the neocons the answer is obvious, you do not create chaos in such a volatile region and not expect to create long ranging and dangerous policy changes.
I am interested in reading Cernig's take on this, also.
Dawn has posted the emergency decree. It mentions the ongoing civil war a time or two, but mostly rails against activist judges.
Thanks C. I knew you could make sense of this but I think it was me who was wildly wrong about the terrorism angle. The second link was one I found yesterday, that wasn't a quote from Ed.
PS: I've revised the post to make my contribution clearer but even if it is a red herring to justify the imposition of martial law, I still find that angle to be worrisome.
That strongly suggests Musharaff deliberately timed his move so that he could control Bhutto's appearances to the Pakistani public. I don't expect her to be allowed free entry to Pakistan now. Either she'll be exiled again or arrested.
I wouldn't be surprised after the dust settles to see Musharraf or whoever in the military replaces Musharraf work with Bhutto rather than in opposition to her.
Just yesterday, Admiral Fallon told Musharaff that it would be "difficult" for the Bush administration to convince Congress to keep giving Pakistan billions in military aid if he declared martial law!
As I have said before billions of dollars are always welcome but it is the contradictions within the society that ultimately drives the politics. If you use the billions in a way that works with the dynamics of the society you have much more leverage than if you just hand over money as payoff. The administration adopted the latter approach though lately I have to admit there had been some stirrings (aid directed to the FATA etc.) which seemed to indicate that they were finally getting it. But maybe it was too late.
Sorry C, you're off base on this one.
The US did more than any other country to bring Bhutto back and broker the deal that would have brought democracy back to Pakistan.
Otherwise, you're analysis of why Musharraf acted is spot on.
Hi Rick,
I suspect your refering to mark mazetti - Judy Miller's shadow - reporting such was the case in the NY Times.
However, outwith the Mazetti report, everything I've seen says that the Arabs were ecouraging the UK's former High Commissioner to Pakistan to do all the running as the actual go-between for Bhutto and Musharaff. It looks to me that, if the Mazetti report is even true, then the Bush administration were pushing what was already a fait accomplis by the time they got behind it.
Regards, C
Commenting by HaloScan
