Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

October 29th, 2006

Tags

Comments

24 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The End Game is Pakistan

The following is from an interview with STRATFOR founder George Friedman.

“[The United States] will play defense against Al Qaeda in the United States and Saudi Arabia. It will threaten Iran with war if Iran aids Al Qaeda. Most importantly, the United States will have to invade northwestern Pakistan. There are plans for this already. In addition, if Pakistan collapses due to an invasion, the United States and India will have to jointly occupy Pakistan. The end game is Pakistan.”Â?

Neither Afghanistan or Iraq will be the last America’s fights. Whether cloak and dagger or outright invasion, the war against Islamism and morever the Gap will continue. How do our readers see the Long War progressing? What is the end game?

Comments to this entry

Smitten Eagle
October 29, 2006
3:53 pm
Another possibility would be to leverage Chinese influence with Pakistan, and perhaps have them help to administer the broken region.

Advantages:

1) It would further tie China and the US together on the same side, further reducing the possibility of war in long term with China.

2) Using China a something of a pillar of strength is moving with the tides of history as many see them. We are already in effect using China to hold down North Korea. I'm sure China ia willing to do what it can to further increase it's influence in Asia, and this is a good way of doing it.

3) It engages China in the Long War. China's engagement in the Long War now consists of basically holding down the little Uighur populace inhabitating some speedbumps of the Silk Road. Getting them involved in the Long War is essential.

4) Having China adminster Pakistan takes advantage of an old Pakistan-China alliance, and it keeps India from having to rip open scars that have had some time to heal.

5) We could drive a wedge between Iran and China, by basically making China choose our side in the fight against Islam.
Younghusband
October 29, 2006
4:47 pm
I think the endgame can only come in the form as some new threat, possibly a return to great power war. Once those Chinese come screaming over the hills, international terrorism will take a backseat and be regarded as the nuisance it really is.
moorethanthis
October 29, 2006
5:12 pm
"[The USA] will threaten Iran with war if Iran aids Al Qaeda."

How likely is that really? Iran is sitting pretty in the region right now, thanks to its influence over Hizbullah and various Iraqi Shia groups. An alliance of convenience with AQ to cause damage to the US would cause more trouble for Iran than benefits (AQ-aligned extremist Sunnis using Iranian supplies to attack "apostate" Shia Iran), with the added possibility of America finding out and having justifiable grounds for a military attack of some kind. It seems strange that someone who thinks an Al Qaeda-Iran alliance is a definite possibility can comment on world affairs from a position of expertise.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
October 29, 2006
5:53 pm
If Friedman is right, the chances of nukes being used appear to increase by a huge amount. Joint US-Indian occupation of Pakistan seems like a crazy-go-nuts endgame. The nuclear issue is one problem; further destabilization in South Asia is another, and the possiblity of China getting involved (screaming down the Karakoram highway?) is yet another.

YH is right in that in order to mobilize US public opinion for such a venture some event, spinned as a massively serious threat, would have to take place. It's scary to think about, and we should hope that Friedman is wrong.

Friedman appears to be partly right about US motives in going into Iraq, but I suspect that even what he says in the interview is a red herring, particularly since the invasion of Iraq was being planned before 9/11 (remember Paul O'Neill?).

As far as the progress of the Perpetual War goes, what Friedman suggests seems to move us even closer to such a state, probably in an Orwell-esque grouping of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. The Gap Chirol refers to will be the focus of constant, low-intensity warfare on the fringes.

If there is an invasion of Pakistan, the other possible result is that Caliphate that everyone seems to be so worried about. Honestly, it's hard to imagine the US going for that kind of a play, with the experience of Iraq still fresh and the fierce opposition from many sides that you would expect. It's a crazy-go-nuts scenario (that does not mean I discount the possibility of it happening, we have already seen some crazy things recently; it makes me wish I had visited more of Pakistan when I had the chance).
Kevin
October 29, 2006
6:07 pm
If we partition Iraq- Iran will splinter. One of the four breakaways will be Baluchistan which is going to also transcend throughout southern Pakistan. The endgame is not Pakistan though; it is Xingjiang province China(via ETIM and Uighur seperatist movement) ;)
Kevin
October 29, 2006
6:39 pm
A destabilized UAR (Uighur Autonomous Region) will destroy the Kazakh-China pipeline and cut any Caspian energy from flowing eastward. Baluchistan and Afghanistan will open the US pipeline corridor from Turkmenistan and combined with UAR will isolate China from the Middle East and Central Asia.

Turkey will be one of the losers of this partition; they are a fellow member of NATO. The key to fracturing Iran is make the partition seem unavoidable as it is doing right now. lol The payoff off will be a more stable BCT alternative pipeline corridor through our new friends- Kurdistan ;)

Iran has neglected the fact that most their oil fields are in majority Arab occupied territory. Let them grow in influence in Southern Iraq; Arabs and Persians have an underlying hatred towards one another. Once Iraq is partitioned, the Kurds will initiated the division; the MEK will do the rest. Just call it the Arabian Gulf...to a Persians face. ;)
Mihnea
October 29, 2006
6:40 pm
I don't entirely agree. Even with Indian backing, the US would find itself in an even bigger morass than in Iraq, tactically. Military intervention is entirely out of the question. It would require hundreds of thousands of troops, billions of dollars and it would forever rupture its ties to the Islamic world and a great deal of the Western one, no matter how you'd sell an intervention there without the backing of Musharaf. And I sincerely doubt Musharaf would agree, seeing how he was treated post-9|11, threatened and bullied into submission. I doubt he'd want more US troops there for fears of sparking internal uprising.
ElamBend
October 29, 2006
7:37 pm
To "Invade" NW Pakistan would take far more troops and logistical support than we currently have in Afghanistan, and would be overkill to boot.

However, there is another option. If Musharif has decided that these weak treaties with the outlaw provinces allow him to wash his hands of doing anything there; he has little standing to complain if we begin increased air and special forces campaigns accross the border (if we haven't already). I think this is what Friedman means. Even if India were to invade, they would likely only take NE Pakistan and perhaps the port of Karachi and leave the reast to descend into anarchy, particularly Baluchistan - which would make things tough for Iran. Don't forget that Pakistan my look like small fish right now to Indian considering what is going on in Bangladesh.

Of Iran, they look like they are sitting pretty right now, but they have several problems. Right now, like Venezuela, they are floating on the confidence of high oil prices. If that doesn't last, they face a severe capital crunch for an economy that is a shambles. They even have energy problems, for they have very low refinery capacity. They have to IMPORT gasoline. This is a weakness that could be easily exploited should someone want to. They are a brittle regime that could cause lots of problems, but brittle they remain. I agree, that if Iraq were partitioned it might now work out as well for Iran as they think. However, there is one problem with this from an American prospective that has not been addressed: our supply lines. Turkey is unreliable and every port from Kuwait, to Qatar, to the Hormuz straights are venerable to Perisan chaos.

Back to the main point, though; Musharif had dealt himself out of the decision table and now cannot act surprise when we launch strikes in Waziristan and Bajaur.

PS - Couldn't we find a legal use for all the poppies grown in Afghanistan? Wasn't this done in Turkey years ago?
kb
October 29, 2006
10:35 pm
Much ado about nothing. Nothing is going to happen in Pakistan. Nothing is going to happen in India. The U.S. had better stay the hell out of both, as it has no business being there at all. China will do nothing. Don't see what the fuss is all about. The only interesting thing about the quote above is the usual U.S. playing a defensive role. Notice that by definition everything the U.S. does happens to be defensive. (Should be remembered that for propaganda and indoctrination purposes the War Department changed it's name to The Department of Defense. As one can easily see in the perceptions of many commenters here and elsewhere, the notion that ALL U.S. actions are "defensive". Of course the rest of the planet hardly sees it that way, as they haven't benifitted from a good indoctirnation.) It was asserted above without apparent second thought that the U.S. being in Saudi Arabia is to play a defensive role. Does this mean that if al Qaeda comes into the U.S., the citizens of the U.S. decide to boot them out, that the citizens are the invaders and al Qaeda are the defenders? Now, to a rational person, this would seem absurd. However, with aslight change of names and places, it all becomes perfectly acceptible and normal. That's odd. And the "preventive war" doctrine is perhaps one of the most vile maxims to have ever been offered. If assumed to be a legitmate course of action, it completely makes the terrorist acts of 9/11 okay. There was no terrorism. Anyway, rather than trying to come up with ways to further increase the role of the military, something which we have been warned against from the earliest days of the country, perhaps the U.S. had better just try and avoid getting involved in any more messes.kb
Kevin
October 29, 2006
10:56 pm
My crazy conclusion; maybe this is why we "stay the course" when a percieved failure is evident- and why Rummy and others have not been canned.

1. The GWOT is a subterfuge for a struggle to control energy in Central Asia and the Middle East.
2. Al Qaeda is tactically aligned with US geopolitical interests.
3. We are currently winning this war.
Curzon
October 29, 2006
11:57 pm
Al Qaeda is tactically aligned with US geopolitical interests.


Al Qaeda's original demands were that we pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia and be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, both of which the US has since done...
Kevin
October 30, 2006
12:08 am
"Al Qaeda's original demands were that we pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia"

One must wonder "why?":http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Desert-Coming-Shock-Economy/dp/0471790184/sr=1-1/qid=1162166638/ref=sr_1_1/002-6168443-5636007?ie=UTF8&s=books
Arcane
October 30, 2006
1:49 am
(Should be remembered that for propaganda and indoctrination purposes the War Department changed it's name to The Department of Defense. As one can easily see in the perceptions of many commenters here and elsewhere, the notion that ALL U.S. actions are "defensive"Â?. Of course the rest of the planet hardly sees it that way, as they haven't benifitted from a good indoctirnation.)

If I got a dime everytime you said "propaganda" and "indoctrination," I'd be rich!

Anyways, you know very little of US military history or organization. Prior to the forming of the Department of Defense, there were two different executive departments: the Department of War and the Department of the Navy. In 1947, after splitting the Air Force away from the Army, the cabinet branch decided to move all military forces under a single cabinet branch. Thus, the Department of the Air Force, Department of the Army (formerly the Department of War), and Department of the Navy were subsumed into the National Military Establishment, which in 1949 was renamed the Department of Defense.

So, it had nothing to do with propaganda and indoctrination. The US Navy conducted warfare, but was not aligned under the War Department, which controlled the Army. The Secretary of War was renamed the Secretary of the Army, and the other two secretaries were realigned under a single Secretary of Defense.

A simple reading of history would show you that. All you're doing is regurgitating ultra-left propaganda.
kb
October 30, 2006
3:16 am
Arcane said:

"If I got a dime everytime you said "propaganda"Â? and "indoctrination,"Â? I'd be rich!"

If you got a penny for everytime you've demonstrated propaganda in action you'd be richer. Here, let's have a demonstration.kb

"Anyways, you know very little of US military history or organization."

Really? Where's your eviddence? Practicing your channeling again?kb

"Prior to the forming of the Department of Defense, there were two different executive departments: the Department of War and the Department of the Navy. In 1947, after splitting the Air Force away from the Army, the cabinet branch decided to move all military forces under a single cabinet branch. Thus, the Department of the Air Force, Department of the Army (formerly the Department of War), and Department of the Navy were subsumed into the National Military Establishment, which in 1949 was renamed the Department of Defense."

Yes? And you think this contradicts what I've said somehow? Perhaps a basic reading course would do for starters. There's nothing at all contradictory about what I've put forth and what you have, or ifthere is you haven't shown what it is. It was a conscious decision to change the name for a purpose. It was no accident that this name was chosen. And as I've already demonstrated, you and your and your like-minded compatriots use language and the corresponding logic which fits the propaganda. Most items you discuss are presupposing that whatever the U.S. does is defensive, even if it always somewhere else. Hence the unwitting apologetic for bin Laden and 9/11, who can make the same argument using the same logic. The notion that everything the U.S. does is by definition "defensive" permeates most media, much of education and scholarship, and most definitely right wing blogs. It's never even questioned or considered to my knowledge. This itself demonstrates how ingrained it is, i.e., the depth of the indoctrination. But if youhave another take I'd be more than happy to hear it.kb

"So, it had nothing to do with propaganda and indoctrination."

On the contrary, it had everything to do with it, by definition. And what you've presented regarding the history does nothing to change this fact. In fact, it supports it. Try again.kb

"The US Navy conducted warfare, but was not aligned under the War Department, which controlled the Army."

Yes, so?kb

"The Secretary of War was renamed the Secretary of the Army, and the other two secretaries were realigned under a single Secretary of Defense."

Yes, so? Do you think this doesn't confirm what I've asserted? It has nothing to do with it at all. The name was consciously chosen for a reason. Here's a good diddy:

"....Department of War to the Department of Defense. This name change was one of the greatest Orwellian doublespeak deceptions of all time, for since the creation of the National Security Act the U.S. has illegally violated the sovereignty of dozens of nations in a multitude of ways--from air war and armed invasion to covert subversion--, all under the guise of "defense," when in fact the U.S. has been in danger from few of these countries (Grenada?!)."

or

"The name "Freedom House" should at once arouse a certain skepticism among people attuned to the machinations of modern propaganda systems, just as any good student of Orwell should have realized that a change in the name of the U.S. War Department to "Defense Department" in 1947 signalled that henceforth the state would be shifting from defense to aggressive war. In fact, "Freedom House" is no less of an Orwellian construction, as its record indicates." (You can ask Curzon for the references)

I can go on and on if you wish. Let me know.kb

"A simple reading of history would show you that. All you're doing is regurgitating ultra-left propaganda."

Really? You haven't demonstrated that anything I've said was left. On the other hand I've demonstrated that you yourself are regurgitating the very propaganda which I've asserted. And what makes it even funnier is that you, in this latest attempt, have only reconfimed this and you're not even aware that you've done so. Thanks for the assistance. It's great to have those who are willing to confirm your assertions, even if they don't know they're doing it. Anyway, how about a quote from a real radical regarding the "defense" of the military: "Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty." I'll give you a hint. It wasn't Chomsky (I just used Chomsky here instead of any number of others because I know how Curzon and a few others whoknow nothing about him cringe every time they see his name), though I'm sure he would probably agree.kb

Anyway, let me know when you've discovered the real reason for the name change. They probably just flipped a coin, yes? What's really funny is that rarely, I can't really recall one instance right now, where you folks from the right have ever acknowledged an instance of propaganda from your own country. Don't you think this is a slight oversight? Do you think your country, which has the most money, military, etc.... doesn't use propaganda? Given the sophistication and technological advantages of the country, don't you think that just maybe they'd also be good in the uses and techniques of propaganda? I mean, even Hitler recognized this long ago as being something the west (Britian and U.S.) were particularly good at. It's just odd that you wouldn't even consider such notion, don't you think? Actually, that you obviously haven't, or maybe you have and have just failed to mention it here, would lend credence to my assertion about how it works. Do you think that because the U.S. is a relatively free country that there is no propaganda? Any even semi-rational or logical person would assume that there is even more precisely because of the freedom. I mean there's enough evidence in history where this very thing has been mentioned by those you helped to develop it.(You can read Edward Bernays for starters)kb
Arcane
October 30, 2006
7:16 am
Department of War to the Department of Defense.

This is not what happened. The Department of War became the Department of the Army, which was then subsumed under the Department of Defense. All you're doing is citing Chomsky's hearsay...

(You can ask Curzon for the references)

Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman, no shit...

You haven't demonstrated that anything I've said was left.

Well, being that you love Noam Chomsky, who is an ultra-leftist / anarchist...

Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty

Ooooohh, wow, you can quote George Washington... big deal. 4% of GDP is spent on the military. Over 30% of GDP is spent on social welfare programs. That means that eight times as much is spent on social welfare programs as on the military. That hardly qualifies as an overgrown military establishment... if anything it qualifies as an overgrown welfare establishment.

let me know when you've discovered the real reason for the name change.

Well, you have provided no evidence that there was malicious intent behind it? Maybe they got it out of the preamble of the Constitution, where it says, "provide for the common Defense"?

What's really funny is that rarely, I can't really recall one instance right now, where you folks from the right have ever acknowledged an instance of propaganda from your own country.

I have never denied that our government puts out propaganda. I see no issue with that. But propaganda is not necessarily a bad thing, although you think anything that is pro-America is. You hate this country.

I will not speak with you any further.
kb
October 30, 2006
9:42 am
Department of War to the Department of Defense.

"This is not what happened. The Department of War became the Department of the Army, which was then subsumed under the Department of Defense. All you're doing is citing Chomsky's hearsay"¦"

Do you think that what you've offered here disputes why the name was changed? It supports the assertions I've made.kb

(You can ask Curzon for the references)

"Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman, no shit"¦"

Oh, so you CAN Google.kb

"You haven't demonstrated that anything I've said was left."

"Well, being that you love Noam Chomsky, who is an ultra-leftist / anarchist"¦"

Where is your evidence for this?kb

Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty

"Ooooohh, wow, you can quote George Washington"¦ big deal."

Oooooohh, wow, you can Google to find a quote. But I guess since he's only the first president, what would he have to offer. He was probably a communist anyway. I mean, I'm almost positive Chomsky would agree with GW on this one.kb

"4% of GDP is spent on the military. Over 30% of GDP is spent on social welfare programs. That means that eight times as much is spent on social welfare programs as on the military. That hardly qualifies as an overgrown military establishment"¦ if anything it qualifies as an overgrown welfare establishment."

This number means nothing. Here, these numbers are slightly more telling:

Year US World US as percent of world
1988 426.8 910 46.9
1989 422.1 906 46.6
1990 403.7 884 45.7
1991 354.3 844 n/a
1992 374.4 785 47.7
1993 354.8 762 46.6
1994 334.5 740 45.2
1995 315.1 707 44.6
1996 298.1 691 43.1
1997 296.5 696 42.6
1998 289.7 690 42.0
1999 290.5 696 41.7
2000 301.7 723 41.7
2001 304.1 741 41.0
2002 335.7 784 42.8

Personally, I'd say that 42.8% was pretty high. You can see many more great charts here as well. Like out of the top 15 countries, the U.S. spends more than them all combined. Now, a rational person, most of the planet, looks at these numbers, looks at what's going on around the world, and usually comes to the same conclusion. But I hardly think that it's that the U.S. is weak and insecure and needs more protection. However, given the direction the present administration has taken us in, you know, increasing terrorism, which most all studies that I'm aware of now show, including that of the government now show, they sure seem to be doing all they can to find a reason to put more into the military.kb

Oh, and before you start whining that they're all from radical left sources, here's a list:

"World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers," a series of annual reports produced by the US government,
the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,
the CIA's World Factbook 2003, and
IISS's The Military Balance: 2002--2003.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-US-world.php

"let me know when you've discovered the real reason for the name change."

I have. And if were not for the strong affects the propaganda was still having on your ability to recognize the reason, you'd see it too. I guess they just had a naming contest and some third grader thought Department of Defense was good and won a trip to Washington to sit on Mark Foley's lap or something, huh?kb

"Well, you have provided no evidence that there was malicious intent behind it?"

I never said there was "malicious intent" behind it. I simply said that the name was changed for a reason, and the reason is transparent in this case. Of course had the Soviet Union called their War Department "Department of Defense", like when they were invading various places, in defense, of course, there's a LOOOONG history of this as well, you would have balked that they called their War Department DOD, yes? kb

"Maybe they got it out of the preamble of the Constitution, where it says, "provide for the common Defense"Â??"

I think not. In fact, it was the exact opposite to what it is now. Then there was actually something to defend against, and I'm leaving out the entire Native American episodes. That defense which Washington had in mind is nothing at all like the invasions of other countries under the guise of defense. There are plenty of other examples though in U.S. history, as well as other countries histories, where defense was used for aggression. Ask and I can give you a list.kb

What's really funny is that rarely, I can't really recall one instance right now, where you folks from the right have ever acknowledged an instance of propaganda from your own country.

"I have never denied that our government puts out propaganda."

Yes, why would you given that you don't know what it is.kb

"I see no issue with that."

Then some good examples, like the changing of the War Department name, will be no problem for you. I'll be waiting.kb

"But propaganda is not necessarily a bad thing, although you think anything that is pro-America is. You hate this country."

Oh, and you have made it so abundantly clear by everything you've said. Now you have the nerve to preach to me that propaganda is good and that to recognize it makes one "anti-American"? You poor thing. You further confirm my thesis with every passing line. Look at what U.S. propaganda has led you to. You cheer U.S. propaganda and hate America if you don't. You, my son, are are as indoctrinated and pefect a citizen as any totalitarian country could ask for. This is really sad.kb

"I will not speak with you any further."

Good idea. I'd say spend more of your time at the library instead of reading Guns and Ammo and thinking this makes you some sort of patriot.kb
jomama
October 30, 2006
2:55 pm
A war that no one alive will see the end of...neither will many generations that come after, I expect.

Except for the United State[sic] participation in it.

It's broke, busted, bankrupt.
CaptBBQ
October 30, 2006
3:40 pm
Stratfor said what?! Time to cancel my subscription.
moorethanthis
October 30, 2006
4:00 pm
I forgot to mention this in my first comment, but it also seems strange that Freidman thinks taking care of Al-Qaeda's central leadership in Pakistan is still important. Considering almost all the major terror attacks since 9/11 had hardly anything in the way of direct funding/support from them, it seems beside the point to go after them, especially with such a potentially catastrophic gambit as a full-scale invasion. If the US is really looking after its interests, the endgame will be full control of energy resources in the Middle East and Central Asia - which after Iraq, looks much harder to accomplish.
alec
October 30, 2006
9:35 pm
Pakistan really is the next area of operation (and already is for most purposes -- the Pakistani government only names us when America blows up civilians too).

I suggest everyone see the PBS Frontline program "The Return of the Taliban": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

After the fall of the Taliban five years ago, some experts warned of a nightmare scenario in which the Taliban and Al Qaeda would escape from Afghanistan into neighboring Pakistan and set up new command centers far out of America's reach.

That nightmare scenario has now come true. The Taliban controls large parts of the lawless tribal areas along the border. In a video obtained by FRONTLINE, the Taliban demonstrate their brutal brand of justice. After executing 17 people, said to be thieves, in front of a crowd of hundreds, they hung the bodies on poles for three days. "We have killed these people and sent them to God," a Taliban gunman says to the camera. "God will bring them to justice."

FRONTLINE correspondent Martin Smith ("Hunting bin Laden"; "Truth, War and Consequences") returns to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and presents a rare look inside this secret sanctuary in "Return of the Taliban." In a region long suspected of harboring Osama bin Laden and strictly off-limits to U.S. troops, Smith explores the complex web of alliances among the Taliban, Al Qaeda fighters and the Pakistani military, and analyzes the consequences for U.S. policy.

continued...

Frustrated by Pakistan's lack of control in the tribal areas, the U.S. military began direct targeting of Al Qaeda operatives using unmanned Predator aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles. The program was exposed in December 2005 when a local Pakistani journalist and FRONTLINE contributor, Hayat Ullah Khan ("In Search of Al Qaeda"), took photographs showing that a U.S. missile had been used to kill an Al Qaeda operative, directly contradicting the Pakistani military's account of his death. Within days, Hayat Ullah was seized by unknown assailants, and his body was later found dumped by the side of the road; he was wearing government-issue handcuffs. His family tells FRONTLINE that the Pakistani military is responsible for his death, but President Musharraf and the military deny any involvement. Hayat Ullah Khan was the seventh journalist killed in the tribal areas since 2002.

"The United States is beginning to recognize that its project in Afghanistan will fail unless it addresses the sanctuary and support that the Taliban enjoys in Pakistan," says Steve Coll. "But the United States has not yet reached the point where it knows what kind of ... policy it is prepared to carry out."
Shloky
October 31, 2006
7:39 am
I think the proper term for getting pulled into Pakistan is "mission creep".

Arcane - I'm not getting into that debate but -

bq. 4% of GDP is spent on the military. Over 30% of GDP is spent on social welfare programs. That means that eight times as much is spent on social welfare programs as on the military. That hardly qualifies as an overgrown military establishment"¦ if anything it qualifies as an overgrown welfare establishment.

I'd suggest you look at percentage of government spending instead of GDP.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
October 31, 2006
4:40 pm
I think the relevant departments are the "Department of Peace" and the "Department of Truth".

And I suspect that kb was probably right in his first post in this thread. When I first responded, I had not realized that the Friedman comments were 2 years old.
kb
October 31, 2006
11:33 pm
von Kaufman-Turkestansky said:

"I think the relevant departments are the "Department of Peace"Â? and the "Department of Truth"Â?."

(Thanks. It's a good idea to always look closely at both Friedmans before using them for references. While they both like to make assertions which sound prophetic, I mean, someone has to read the crystal ball for the people, more often than not their balls are cracked, or at least foggy.)

I'd like to think that it was possible to have such departments which were committed to such noble and humane causes such as "Truth" and "Peace" though I'm not sure they would be anymore that nicer sounding Orwellians. If there were oversite committees making sure that "Peace" wasn't actually "war", and "Truth" wasn't actually "lie", then maybe we'd be onto something. Of course we'd have to choose the people to be on these committees which may lead to an infinite regression of oversite committees. Whoever they are, I'd say the people were a good choice, especially in a democracy, they should assess, and tell the government what to do. I thought we were supposed to sort of have this in the U.S., but I think there's more evidence to the contrary sometimes.kb
ElamBend
November 1, 2006
4:48 pm
Here is an 'article':http://d-n-i.net/lind/lind_10_31_06.htm on the logistical problems and vulnerabilities the U.S. would face if it attacks Iran. I don't agree with everything he says, but I worry about supply and support for our forces in Iraq if we stir up a Persian hornets nest.