- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
As a matter of explanation, not apology, this kind of scenario will be the rule, not the exception, in Obama's presidency. Though by some estimates he may have won by 20 million more votes due to fraud, Obama suffers from two vulnerabilities. The first and most obvious is that he is a perceived "black" man in a "white" dominated ruling elite. Given the history of oppression to the point of lynching, our new president will have the specter of assassination always lurking in the background.
Obama's second difficulty is that he didn't serve in the armed forces. It shouldn't matter. The being that he is replacing is a deserter. Unfortunately, it does matter. He can easily be bullied and manipulated by his National Security Advisor (a former Marine general) and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Because of the war momentum created by the military industrial complex, enemies have to be found in order to justify the bloated Pentagon budget. It could be East Asia today, and Eurasia tomorrow. One would think that the "war on terror" would cause some propaganda problems, since there is no clear nation to attack. Such is not the case, though, as we have seen with "Iraq." Threats can easily be conjured up by proclaiming one nation after another as either an "immanent threat," a "terrorist" state, or a supporter of "terrorism."
We may end up waging war of one kind or another against "Iran." From the perspective of our foreign policy establishment, it's like gambling in Vegas: Can the "U.S." wage endless war against "terrorism" in the face of an impending collapse of our economic system? From the foreign policy standpoint, the economy is exogenous - outside their system, outside their realm of consideration.
What matters to our foreign policy establishment was revealed on a Meet the Press segment eight days ago (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493781/page/6/): David Sanger - "They (The "Iranians") could declare at any point in the first year or two of Barack Obama's presidency, 'Hey, we can make a bomb.' And at that point you have changed the balance of power."
Thus was revealed "our" entire "Mideast" policy - towards "Israel," towards the "Palestinians," towards "Iran," and towards everyone else in the region. All that matters is the "balance of power." "We" will wage any war, drop any bomb, overthrow any government, and sponsor any occupation, as long as the "balance of power" is preserved. And what is that "balance of power?" Why, balanced in "our" favor, of course.
