It's the real agenda behind the raygun revolution.  And the contract on america.  

Once our fledgling democracy is bankrupt corporate power rules.  No environmental or any other reform efforts will ever be tried.  The representative government of, by, and for we the people becomes a ceremonial rubber stamping org for corporate power.

The cold war over, they needed a new endless war.  The war on terror.  To drain the public coffers permanently this time.  No more pesky government meddling with multinational monopoly corporate hegemony.

When we let them put Wolfi, the feller who said Iraq would cost the taxpayers 1.8 billion, in charge of the World Bank.  That signalled a new low.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006...

It's relevant not only about Iraq, but about this administration's policies in general. (Warning: endless culture warring toward the end of the comments section, where people attempt to frame everyone Rosen cites as latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading... You know the drill.)

But he refrains from saying all he ought.  The Bush administration has not neglected global warming as a security issue, only because of being too exclusively focused on Iraq.  It has been directed to do nothing about global warming, because Dick Cheney, in the first place, is looking out for his own and his friends' short-term economic interests.

Nicholas Kristoff, in his op-ed in today's NY Times, says more boldly that one of the things that George W. Bush should do to try to improve his legacy is to make Cheney resign.

And by the way, I think Clarke is absolutely right about Pakistan and Russia, but I suspect he misreads Latin America, and maybe Africa too.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   The comments about how rosy everything was in Latin America before 9/11 clearly miss the point.  The rise of the left there is due to the failure of Washington supported free market policies to make any dent in poverty.  Basically people woke up, and finalized realized that the free market would end poverty for them some day in the distant future, just not any time soon, thanks.  

   Starvation of the poor to benefit the new capitalist class not being a popular response, people turned to the left.

   The idea that Iraq has "caused" this "problem" is an interesting one.  It certainly puts Mr. Clarke on the solid right side of the political spectrum.

   It is possible to make a case that by focusing on torturing the people of Iraq (in the belief that this would make them love us), the US, did the rest of the world a favor by ignoring it.

   Mr. Clarke seems to be complaining that US hegemony was weakened by Iraq (true), but he sees this as bad.

   Not everyone does.

patrick

The strong man that kept it all together is no more, what have you done America?

Saddam did no wrong, other than be tough to meet the conditions necessary to keep a place like Iraq in good order...............

I think something terribly wrong has occurred... both legally and ethically.

Why has the USA gone down the drain???

You realise Saddam has won.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Saddam was put in place by oil interests with the CIA training his death squads. They sponsored him as an up and coming "strongman' since the 70s. He was protecting the Saudi oil from Iran.

The shells for his gas attacks were supplied by the Reagan administration, along with satelite targeting information.

Exxonmob and halliburton do not like signing oil contracts with any nation that elects it's leaders.  elected leaders often times institute profit sharing plans for oil resources, as in Alaska.  this is problematic for monoply corporations.

They like to sign agreements with dictators, who then settle for a fraction of what they would pay to a representative government.  The money goes for buying weapons from the military industrial monopolists and the rest goes in Swiss accounts.

I guess it's still hard for the general public to understand.  The mass delusional media covers it up so well.

Hanging Saddam for his crimes in order to put the fear of justice in torturing, murdering dictators everywhere,was as effective as  sending Martha Stewart away to cure stock market insider trading corruption.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Aside from acknowledging that global warming is a neglected issue -- props to Clarke on that, although he leaves unstated what might be the best approach to that problem -- most of the rest is still framed in the context of American imperialism. Consider the following.

"Formerly debt-ridden economies were implementing pro-market reforms, and the United States was welcomed as a partner."

Does anyone on Grist know how to decode that? Let me help: "Countries which have been sufficiently humiliated and brought to their knees by the (American-controlled) IMF, are now resigned to allowing American multi-national corporations to exploit their resources, their people, and their economy, lest we Americans unleash black-ops warfare, assassinations, embargoes, or other ways of making you ... um ... partners"

For Grist readers, it's also important to make the leap from "trading partner" to the environmental degradation that typically accompanies globalization. Being a "good partner" to the U.S. means environmental hell for the locals.

Drug control is another smokescreen issue , as the U.S. has consistently used drug trafficking for its own purposes, not least of which is the financial power of all that money to finance covert warfare, and float many of our major banks -- it's estimated that maybe a trillion dollars a year is laundered through American banks, a great boon to a financial system that is otherwise leaking money. Believe it, George HW Bush was not seriously interested in eliminating the drug trade, just controlling how the money gets used. And congress gave him a new budget to do that.

I could go on.

Clarke brings up a great list of issues, but the solutions that a loyal servant of the American Empire might offer are not necessarily the ones -- I hope! -- that a reader of Grist would want if we are to arrive at not only a sustainable planet but a just and humane world.

I also read in Clarke that he does not believe (or understand) global warming.  He talks about a future world, unchanged from the past, conventional conflicts.

Zarkov, the number of American deaths in Iraq just passed the 3,000 point.  You are surely right about the Iraqi death count, which is nearly impossible to calculate.  Indeed, one of the many moral failures of the US government is that it never kept a careful tally of Iraqi casualties.

On Saddam's trial and death: Probably the trial should have been conducted outside Iraq, but in a Sunni Muslim country, and with an international court.  And the death penalty should never have been an option for sentencing.  Also, he should have had to stand trial for all of the major charges.

But, see, this is Richard Clarke's point: we inevitably end up talking about Iraq.  We are a bunch of second-graders playing soccer.

Patrick, I am glad you understand what I had in mind regarding Latin America.  Whether Clarke has a position on the political spectrum, I could not say.  It seems that the idea that the US should be a force for enlightened democratic government and human rights throughout the world is deeply rooted in many of us, and transcends political affiliation.  Hence, the neo-cons emerged within the traditionally realist Republican party, and many liberals (not I, however) agreed with them in supporting the invasion of Iraq.  I agree at least this far, that the world would be better if the US continued to have a positive moral influence; but that influence should not be asserted by economic or military means.

Of course, thanks to the words and deeds of the current administration, that is all academic, and any attempt by Americans to influence anybody in any way is inevitably going to be toxic for many decades.

As an American in China, you surely see what I, as a student of foreign languages, see, the gross lack of sympathy on the part of many Americans for the experiences and interests and values of others in the world.  Indeed, it is a point of pride, always to put America first.  One of the most disgraceful details of the 2004 presidential campaign was that John Kerry (who was sloppy about other things, e.g. wind-surfing) felt he had to suppress the truth that he speaks French very well.

Inasmuch as Richard Clarke is one of these America-first types, he seems to be a Kissinger-like "ugly American," an old-school right-wing realist, as you say.

The media have given at least a little bit of attention to the double scandal, that hardly anyone involved in the occupation of Iraq knew anything about Iraq, and hardly anyone in government, intelligence and the military speaks Arabic.  (Not that there is anything admirable about learning Arabic, thereby all the better to catch Arabs, throw them into dungeons and torture them.)

An excellent student of mine, whom I like a great deal, intends to join the Marines at the end of next semester.  He is studying Arabic.  I think he represents at least a few of our people in Iraq (I only "think," because any decision to join the military remains for me totally unfathomable), in that he maintains the hope that the people of Iraq and the people of the US are essentially friends, in spite of everything.  And at least on that point, I am proud of those young Americans.  Of course, I wish that they were aware that thus far, the US military has had a very funny way of showing its friendship for the Iraqi people.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

     The students didn't want to offend me, but most of them finally spoke up and saw this as another example of US hypocrisy and brutality.  Iraq has merely stripped the last veneer from the idea that the US represents democracy and/or human rights. (And for many that it even practices them internally!)

     The US still could establish itself as a force for environmental reform and developing a sustainable world.  But that seems unlikely.  I despair. (I take no joy in any of this.)

     The danger of Mr. Clarke is that everything he says fits into the middle-right positions of the Democratic leadership, and really, represents nothing new.

     CanisCandida, you are absolutely correct about the xenophobia shown by the media in attacking Kerry for speaking French.  (And the ignorance of history which allows Americans to forget that the French won the Revolutionary War for us!)

     One of the frightening things that is going on is the placement of people like Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Richard Clarke as being the voices of the "opposition".  They may all be fine individuals, but they all represent the center-right in American politics.

     The use of them as the voices of the "opposition" is clearly intended to keep other voices and other ideas from being heard.  We should be scared.  

      One of the reasons for the rise of ethanol as opposed to real solutions to global warming is that the media presents it as "the" alternative.  They do the same thing on all issues.  George Lakoff is partially right when he says that framing of issues is a problem.  

      Alas, his general solution is for Democrats to better frame from the same center-right perspective.  We need real alternative voices and soon.

      As of now, I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich again.  

patrick