Should Congress revoke Pakistan's aid? …The top U.S. defense official, Robert Gates (left), said this week that he believes "somebody" in Pakistan knew where Osama bin Laden was hiding. – Christian Science Monitor
Dominant Social Theme: It is time for a wider war?
Free-Market Analysis: The ripples of Osama bin Laden's death continue to spread. (How wide would they go had he really been killed earlier this month?) Pakistan's powers-that-be have come in for much of the brunt of negative commentary about shielding bin Laden. (Imagine the criticism had they really done so.) As we can see from the brief article excerpt above, even the temperate Defense Secretary Robert Gates is not above aiming some significant criticism at Pakistan's leaders. (Imagine the negativity of US leaders had Pakistan's top men actually supported the already-dead bin Laden.)
All right. We'll stop now. It gets tedious to continually maintain the probable reality of bin Laden's death a decade ago when an endless torrent of mainstream media reports all revolve around bin Laden's death on May 1, 2011. And besides, how is it possible that the media could be so perfidious? Indeed, the powers-that-be would have to be quite malevolent to maintain such a hoax. Or would they? ….
There is no doubt that the most powerful and successful "naked apes" are the ones that are the most skilled at lying to THEMSELVES. Only once one has convinced oneself that this perspective or that action is NECESSARY even if it is obviously a wrong one (resulting in injury of some sort to some or many people).
The Anglo-American elite that seeks to run the world is obviously convinced in aggregate that they DESERVE to run the world (else why would they have accumulated so much money and power.) This conviction supersedes any moral qualms in a number of areas. One can lie about the death of bin Laden, even create a phony enemy (al-Qaeda) to pursue a phony war. Even a World War can be justified, presumably, spread about the Middle East and Africa. (And, yes, we've written previously that bin Laden's "death" may prove the high-water mark of Empire, and that the West may have in mind a tactical retreat, so this article is an alternative scenario.)
We watch the steadily rising stream of vitriol being aimed at Pakistan and Iran and wonder how it will end. Iran WILL NOT build nuclear plants (and generate fissionable material) according to both Israel and the United States (which conveniently have plenty of both). Iran's spiritual and political bosses on the other hand are equally convinced that they WILL pursue their nuclear strategies to their logical conclusion. This is not a recipe for what Elvis Costello has called "peace, love and understanding."
So increased, expanded war may be what's on the agenda, as we have written in the past. Are we sure of it? No. But when the elites get into trouble (when their dominant social themes are not working and the phony central banking economies they create are not functioning) war is the convenient, even preferred, solution. War, wonderful war!
But war, like anything else, has to be properly applied. So far the wars that have been waged have NOT been doing the job that the elites need done. In fact, the war on terror is a conspicuous flop. The Internet Reformation has thoroughly undermined it in our view and, in any event, the various hostilities are not going well.
The war on Iraq for instance, though declared "over" by the US, is not done at all in our opinion. Yet, just yesterday more bombs exploded in several Iraq cities and warnings continue to be directed toward the US that it must finally (for once) do it what its leaders declared it would do, leave the field of battle. Get out. Go home.
Yes, this message is being delivered in no uncertain terms. Leaders of Iraq's majority Shia Muslim population – supposedly cowed by the US "surge" – have suddenly declared that if the US does not get out as planned, there will be considerably more violence. The US does not want to get out (predictably) and as a result a showdown of sorts seems to be looming.
In Afghanistan, a US victory is to be measured by how desperately the Taliban attacks this summer. The more the Taliban attack, the more defeated they are seen to be. If Kabul falls, the Taliban will be enmeshed in a virtual orgy of self-destruction. If they declare a new government on the ruins of the old they are as good as done for. If they kick the US out of Afghanistan entirely, they might as well lay down their weapons, as they will have been thoroughly vanquished by the Great Satan, which has cleverly vacated the country in order to declare victory. (Oh, there is no end to the Pentagon's strategery!)
Of course, we don't see it this way. The US victory in Iraq is steadily unraveling in our view and the Afghan war is thus going badly. The only solution (other than sucking it up) is to widen the war. Only by turning regional wars into hyper-regional contests will the US finally be able to bring its military advantages (mini-nukes, etc,) into play. Not only that, but a hyper-regional war aimed primarily at Pakistan and Iran could entail a draft and, of course, a steady demand for new fiat money from the Federal Reserve to fund the whole charade. Troublesome young people in Europe and the US will be taken off the street and retrained by competent sergeants.
Yes, a war against Middle Eastern state terrorism makes sense on innumerable levels. The unemployment problem will be solved in a single bold stroke. No more horrible headlines about economic woes. And as the total population of Iran and Pakistan is perhaps 200 million, these two countries (plus Afghanistan) present a delicious enemy. There is no doubt as to the conclusion of the war. NATO and America must win by virtue of sheer population weight.
All this is going through the perfervid brains of Pentagon planners even as we write. Human nature unfortunately doesn't change. The solutions of yesteryear are more than good enough for today's big bureaucratic brass. In fact, we are more and more convinced that major conflicts of the 20th century were to some degree phony ones. That is, they were generated to address certain Money Power needs. Those never change.
War seen this way is a fungible, powerful tool. Mostly it is generated to create social cohesion in our view and just as importantly to distract people from focusing on the source of their frustration and anger, which is more often than not their own ruling elite. The two most obvious examples of manufactured enemies in the 20th century were communists and Nazis.
In fact, there is ample documented, credible, historical evidence that both successful sociopolitical movements – Nazism and communism – were funded by Western elites. Wall Street's banks and financiers were used for this purpose though the strategies as always were generated out of the banking families that run the City of London – that one square mile epicenter of human mischief.
Gates in our opinion, has elected to play the "good guy" in a growing military surge that may be leading the Western world into an ever-wider World War III. The leader of the globe's biggest defense establishment, he is careful to seem bashful and even shy about using its might. Of course we note that hasn't seemed to slow down the juggernaut any. Two wars are being actively pursued in our view and two more may be planned.
In fact, when one looks around the world, one begins to be stunned by all "protests" suddenly appearing. Protests are taking place in Russia, in Georgia, in Saudi Arabia (again), in Bahrain (again), in Israel (a reinvigorated Intifada), and in a dozen or more other countries – both reported by the mainstream Western media and unreported. We are of the opinion that much of this is the product of admitted CIA youth-movement incitement, like the AYM. But not all of it. Presumably, those who began this wave of protests were aware that it might spread and even acquire uncontrollable momentum. Presumably, as well, this plays into the meme of wider war – chaos being a sought-after situation.
Editor's Note: According to wire reports, Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar has been killed in Pakistan, "shot dead while being moved from Quetta to North Waziristan two days ago." We cannot help but note that President Barack Obama is on a kind of roll. He found his birth certificate, discovered and "tapped" Osama bin Laden and now has apparently seen off the "one-eyed" leader of the Taliban. Like Bush before him he is growing into the job of a "wartime" president. Perhaps he will expand it.
Is a super-regional war – a kind of World War III – something the elites are currently working to induce? It would change everything. We recall after World War II that the Anglosphere elites were able to create a new economic system featuring a reserve dollar and global financial infrastructure. Is it a solution destined to reoccur?