recently I've been thinking about what drives policy and I think a crucial factor determining foreign policy since the Reagan years is simply corruption. From what I can tell "the war on terror" and the "war on drugs" have both been nothing more than excuses for the defense sector to rake in big $$$. As was studied during the Iraq war there was ridiculous corruption taking place at every level. For example, i remember a story about a US armored vehicle costing hundreds of thousands $$ which suffered minor damage and was simply set on fire by defense contractors because it was cheaper to bill the government for a new vehicle than to make a minor repair to it. Billions were poured into Iraqi infrastructure investment and into their military which have amounted in a sewage system which floods every time it rains, areas with electricity just 8 hours every day, and an army of 1 million which crumbled against the ISIS forces 1/10 its size. Cheney was a former Haliburton CEO and the Bush gov had lots of ties to the defense industry in general.
Historically the US state and corporate sectors have each acted in their own interests during war time, but it seems like now US state power is seriously undermined and unable to express itself effectively. Does this tally with people's understanding of american history? I guess that in a certain sense all wars have been about helping defense contractors, but it seems like now it has grown out of proportion to the point where the integrity of US hegemony is being threatened, and US foreign policy is a disaster.
sorry I dont know if I'm
sorry I dont know if I'm expressing myself clearly
I guess I said "war on
I guess I said "war on terror" and "war on drugs" because both of them clearly have nothing to do with either terror or drugs. If the neo-cons were honest about their goals of fighting terrorism then they would have invaded pakistan and saudi arabia as those were the countries most responsible for 9/11, instead they picked two countries which logistically made no sense to invade. I guess you could say that the aim from the point of view of the state was to increase american control over the middle east to a point even beyond what it was already, but that failed miserably and I'm thinking it's because the state has simply gotten too corrupt.
War on drugs is only increasing drug use, but it is a huge boon to companies like Monsanto and Cargill and various defense contractors. I guess it is a little more successful in terms of state goals such as increasing control over states and social movements in Latin and South America, not to mention implementing a new form of segregation.
Maybe "war on terror" could also be viewed as a failed attempt to isolate and destroy Iran?
I guess it's a bit like analyzing the fall of Rome in that there's a multitude of factors none of which are solely responsible.
Main factors?
1. Corruption
2. Overzealous leadership
3. Successful defiance to US sphere of influence (Iran, Syria, Libya, Hezbollah)
The CIA just wants to test
The CIA just wants to test out their oil-powered bongs
In my opinion, which is
In my opinion, which is pretty simplistic, the rich take progressively more control over politics, which allows them to make more money which gives them more influence etc.
One other advantage in the US is the ridiculous number of elected positions (that are often largely uncontested) that means that it's very easy to peddle influence at all levels of society.
In terms of Rome,one of the main problems was that the people in charge of Rome were more interestred in profiting from it than maintaining society.
I'm not sure if that is a particularly new situation, but we do seem overdue for a corrective push back against their power.