The Iron Triangle
I think that's what William Greider called the unholy alliance between the Pentagon, Congress, and military contractors in his 1997 book Fortress America. Eisenhower called it the military-industrial complex. Greider suggested that the iron triangle shuddered in panic when the Soviet Union collapsed--would the gravy train come to an end? Not to worry. Using some obtuse language, two George Bushes have reinvigorated militarism to set everything right with the triangle. And Paul Wolfowitz makes the connection pretty explicit in his op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal:
Just as in the Cold War, holding the line in Berlin and Korea was not just about those places alone. It was about the resolve of the free world. Once that resolve was made clear to the Soviets, communism eventually collapsed. The same thing will happen to terrorism--and to all those who have attempted to hijack Islam and threaten America and the rest of the free world, which now includes Iraq. They will see our resolve and the resolve of the free world. Then they, too, will take their place on the ash heap of history.
The free world now includes Iraq? Military checkpoints everywhere, arrests by the hundreds, gunfire, explosions, no power, no water--I guess Janis Joplin was right: Freedom's just another word for "nothin' left to lose."
Wolfowitz's point, such as it is, of his op-ed is summarized in the concluding sentence:
To those who think the battle in Iraq is a distraction from the global war against terrorism . . . tell that to our troops.
He seems to be signalling a shift for who to blame for the occupation's immense problems from Saddam loyalists to foreign terrorists. I'm afraid that if his logic is followed to its terrifying conclusion, in a few years he'll be ending his columns with:
To those who think the battle in Colombia is a distraction from the global war against terrorism...
and not too much longer after that:
To those who think the battle in Kentucky is a distraction from the global war against terrorism...
I guess the most infuriating part is his assumption that there could be anyone in the world with LESS right to be in Iraq than the US military. Imagine if Iraq had attacked the US (admittedly a completely ridiculous idea given how far away it is, its lack of a navy or air force or any serious offensive weaponry capability at all, not to mention that it had never attacked or even threatened us). Even if they freed us from the horrible government of George W. Bush, I don't think many Americans would rest until every last Iraqi invader had been either chased from our shores or killed. Why should we expect Iraqis to react differently to a bloody invasion?
I think that's what William Greider called the unholy alliance between the Pentagon, Congress, and military contractors in his 1997 book Fortress America. Eisenhower called it the military-industrial complex. Greider suggested that the iron triangle shuddered in panic when the Soviet Union collapsed--would the gravy train come to an end? Not to worry. Using some obtuse language, two George Bushes have reinvigorated militarism to set everything right with the triangle. And Paul Wolfowitz makes the connection pretty explicit in his op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal:
Just as in the Cold War, holding the line in Berlin and Korea was not just about those places alone. It was about the resolve of the free world. Once that resolve was made clear to the Soviets, communism eventually collapsed. The same thing will happen to terrorism--and to all those who have attempted to hijack Islam and threaten America and the rest of the free world, which now includes Iraq. They will see our resolve and the resolve of the free world. Then they, too, will take their place on the ash heap of history.
The free world now includes Iraq? Military checkpoints everywhere, arrests by the hundreds, gunfire, explosions, no power, no water--I guess Janis Joplin was right: Freedom's just another word for "nothin' left to lose."
Wolfowitz's point, such as it is, of his op-ed is summarized in the concluding sentence:
To those who think the battle in Iraq is a distraction from the global war against terrorism . . . tell that to our troops.
He seems to be signalling a shift for who to blame for the occupation's immense problems from Saddam loyalists to foreign terrorists. I'm afraid that if his logic is followed to its terrifying conclusion, in a few years he'll be ending his columns with:
To those who think the battle in Colombia is a distraction from the global war against terrorism...
and not too much longer after that:
To those who think the battle in Kentucky is a distraction from the global war against terrorism...
I guess the most infuriating part is his assumption that there could be anyone in the world with LESS right to be in Iraq than the US military. Imagine if Iraq had attacked the US (admittedly a completely ridiculous idea given how far away it is, its lack of a navy or air force or any serious offensive weaponry capability at all, not to mention that it had never attacked or even threatened us). Even if they freed us from the horrible government of George W. Bush, I don't think many Americans would rest until every last Iraqi invader had been either chased from our shores or killed. Why should we expect Iraqis to react differently to a bloody invasion?
<< Home