In figuring the equation for War, did the planners intentionally leave out “x?”

Take a step back from War, and think about the saber rattling that took place and the larger arguments for going to War in the last decade and you may be surprised.

If you examine it, you will discover that the overall rationale for war, it seems that there are no contradictions with the well-being of the Military Industrial Complex. Both enterprises seem somewhat conjoined at the hip. In fact, like the buzzard that is dependent on dead things, the MIC could very well not survive if War wasn't a constant threat--even though at times, the seriousness of the threat had to be enlarged upon and expanded in order to keep the contracts flowing. Nevertheless, the MIC never looked a gift horse in the mouth when it came to filling its larder and, thank you, today they are very, very profitable to the tune of almost a trillion dollars annually—give or take the upkeep on a much smaller military presence.

Without the generosity of these and other companies who's longevity has a direct correlation with War and, needless to say, benefits immensely from that unstable condition, it would be very hard to generate the kind of dollars that sustain Republicans in office. For it seems that there is also a mutual relationship that assures those who press for War, or at least the threat of it, there is a continuing supply of manna to underwrite those efforts.

Thusly, the formula is in place, when we come out with new technology, the idea is to sell the next best technology to all those countries seeking to arm themselves against their possible oppressors. And since we have supplied so many of them, it seems that we are by ourselves the largest contributor to that state of affairs.

So, the demand goes unabated.

Of course, nobody thinks of the American people who underwrite all of these undertakings? Or whether they feel that they could not survive without an F22, despite the fact that there is no real competition for the F18; but those are simply trivial considerations, it seems, in the larger context of keeping the world on its toes and its fingers poised just above the trigger.
But, nevertheless, the game continues.

Of course, this never changes from theatre to theatre, but in areas like the Middle East, there are other considerations.

For example, the Saudis and some other Middle Eastern power bases tend to see us as the equivalent of their hired “hit team.”

And the arrangement is well understood. It works this way, our government provides the protection they need, and they will sell us oil at an optimum rate.

This, of course, endears the Saudis and the other oil potentates, to the Oil barrons and others who profit from Arab oil wealth--thanks to decisions made more than a hundred years ago when the Brits decided that they would decide who owned what land irregardless of the fact that Bedouins had no idea what land ownership implied or inferred-- and one doesn’t have to look too hard, to see all the Western businesses that are dependent on this brisk one way trade that Americans are willing to underwrite in order to drive their cars to the tune of 800 billion dollars annually.

Interestingly, we spend about as much on oil as we do on weaponry!

In exchange for Arabic courtesies, we get to protect their countries against the threat of Iraq and Iran and other ambitious foreign powers while they sit around and make deals to pass our money to their terrorist friends so that the cycle can continue ad infinitum.

There is only one little thing left out of the equation, the “x” factor, the people.

For the people seem to be the least of those to benefit from these elaborate arrangements. Nonetheless, it is the people who furnish the “cannon fodder” for this country’s real enterprises which are to keep the military industrial complex, the oil companies, and, thusly, the government happy, which in turn translates into happiness for the Arab countries who make the whole thing work.

It seems a wonderful arrangement until you wonder what was the role of the people in making these decisions in our democratic society and you have to wind up shaking your head.

It is perhaps one of the best examples of why democracy seems to work so well for business and government; but not so well for the people.

Tocqueville warned us about how easily transformed democracy was and how difficult it was to understand what it can morph into before our eyes. This must be true because it’s been going on for so long without anybody raising a whisper about it.

Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon