0 votes

Is our foreign policy an operation to create what it alleges it is fighting?

It struck me after reading this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-ob...

Excerpt:

"[Democrats] [a]re celebrating a leader who is terrorizing several parts of the Muslim world, repeatedly killing children, targeting rescuers and mourners, and entrenching the authority to exert the most extreme powers in full secrecy and without any accountability -- all while he increases, not decreases, the likelihood of future attacks. "

That the only justification for this foreign policy is to create a permanent enemy. The one that allegedly "started it" was not good enough or broad enough.

The lower levels of society - the masses - had to be sold the pretext of the radical terror threat. The mid levels - petit bourgeois - were told it was about national resources and competing with Russia and China. Higher levels "know" it is all about endless defense contracts. At the highest levels, this MUST be about creating that eternal enemy a la 1984 so that a police state can be brought in. The elite won't be happy until the terror threat is "as advertised".

What's your take? I've always wondered why we went into Iraq and I think this is finally a satisfactory answer for me.