Neo-Reaganites: The "Right" Men for the Job

There is currently alot of opposition to the Bush administration's so-called failed policies in Iraq, but that is really jumping to conclusions. Critics attack the Bush admin for not having a coherent vision for an end-state in Iraq and a corresponding exit strategy, but those critics are operating under the presupposition that it is the intent of the Executives to exit Iraq.

This is in spite of the fact that there are reports of permanent facilities being constructed in Iraq to house U.S. forces. Now, this is clearly an advantageous strategic location, it allows the U.S. to assert proxy control over a nation with the second-largest proven oil reserves.

So, the question is: are we losing in Iraq? This affair clearly has an historical analog - the Vietnam War. Many consider that the U.S. lost the Vietnam War, but this depends on one's definition of "lose." One of the purported objectives for the war in Vietnam was democracy promotion, and even as it failed, the virtues of U.S. leaders were extolled and the only criticism was that they were overly optimistic in noble vision for democracy.

The refrain from the media was essentially that these idealists were too optimistic with their "disinterested concern" for the well-being of democracy in the disadvataged parts of the world. The American media and intellectual elite, the arbitors of the American ideological system, are trying to construct this revisionist history look at our leaders intent in their "messianic vision" for democracy promotion in Iraq.

If one accepts democracy promotion as the goal in both conflicts, it is fair to say that we lost and are losing the respective wars. However, if one looks at Vietnam from another perspective and is willing to accept the hypothetical that the foreign policy objectives in Vietnam were to stop the spread of independent nationalism in the strategically located nation of South Vietnam, then it is quite clear that the war in Vietnam was a success.

In order to do this in toto however, it must be acknowledged that a war was carried out not just in South Vietnam, but against South Vietnam. This is an extremely controversial position, so of course I present it only as a hypothetical.

Let me return to Iraq. If the same could be said about Iraq, that the idea is to stop the spread of independent nationlism, then one could argue that the war in Iraq is actually successful. We have acheived a clear regime change, one of the original ostensible objectives, and we have prevented Saddam Hussein from doing dangerous things to our interests, like using his nation's oil revenues to help its people - a troubling policy for American elites indeed.

Futhermore, it is reasonable to ask about how the Iraq affair pictures in to our overarching objectives in the Global War on Terrror. The neo-Reaganites in the Executive branch of government are perhaps the best people for the job. It is they who are uniquely qualified to deal with the issue of terrorism.

In fact, the holdovers from the Reagan admin are some of the only world leaders today to be condemned by the International Criminal Court for acts of "international terrorism," for a terrorist war they conducted against Nicaragua during the Reagan years. So, no one knows more about terrorism than they do, leaders like Cheney and Rumsfeld are arguably the world's most successful terrorists.

It is ironic however, that Bush said the U.S. had the right to combat any nation that harbors terrorists. However, surely our government will not attack itself for harboring terrorists.

The Global War on Terrorism is, in fact, going well. There is less terrorism in the world because of the GWOT. Particularly because, since the GWOT gives the American government carte blanche to use conventional forces whenever and wherever it wants, the U.S. has stopped engaging in so much terrorism. There is no sense in the CIA fighting proxy wars all over the world to depose democratically-elected leaders, when the can simply use the American military to do this, and thereby justify greater defense spending for large items likes tanks and planes. This is essential for our system of industrial management, the unique brand of military Keynesianism that the Reagan admin used to get the nation out of a recession.

Which brings me to another important point, the state of the domestic economy. The U.S. deficit is $760 trillion (U.S.), but corporate profits are at record highs. This is what really makes for a strong economy in the eyes of right-wingers.

Let's face it, right-wingers are incurably elitist and they believe that as long as the people at the top are doing well, to hell with it. The Bush admin, the neo-Reaganites, are using military deficit spending to boost corporate profits for defense contractors, thereby boosting the largest sector of the economy. This is just what Reagan did, although when Bush came to office the economy was not technically in a recession, as the incorrigibly corrupt Bill Clinton had gone and squandered this nation's economic power by creating the largest budget surplus on record (utterly shameful!!!).

Even though the federal deficit is equivalent to 6.2% of the GDP, corporate profits are strong. And as the nation's economy tanks in the face of global markets, corporate profits will remain strong. A triumph for the neo-Reaganites. They are conservatives in the truest since, they embody conservative values so much, they don't even have to be conservative. They can instead be jingoistic reactionary statists who are architects of the largest federal government in world history.

The neo-Reaganites have also allowed their domestic allies to keep pace with the growth. President Bush is the all-time leading recipient of oil money as campaign contributions, and oil profits have been at record highs. Thanks in part to instability in the Mid East, and no increases in fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, in spite of the warnings of treehugging scientists who say there is a global climate crisis.

So, in conclusion, I say to those who want to decry the leaders of the free world as being totally inept, they are actually highly successful in accomplishing their true objectives. Thus, the neo-Reaganites are the right men for the job. At least my stock portfolio seems to think so.