The Scarlet Tide
Andrew J. Bacevich on the death of his son in Iraq. I find it moving even though I don’t exactly agree with his thesis that
To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove — namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.
Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing.
I think there are plenty of “wealthy individuals and institutions” who had no particular interest in going to war in Iraq then and none in going to war with Iran now. There’s no question that the Republican Party’s activist base began insisting on war with Iraq while the air in lower Manhattan still stank of burning flesh. But the enthusiasm didn’t seem remotely limited to “big business.” Certainly “bellicose evangelicals” wanted war, and they make a nice living, but they wanted war because of their crazed eschatology, not their purses. Meanwhile a wealthy individual the Dems especially haven’t been listening to is that George Soros fellow, who supposedly plays “the left” like a puppeteer.
The interests of the oil industry and the security-industrial complex (SAIC, CACI, Titan, Lockheed Martin etc.) make quite the interlocking set of interests with government officialdom. That’s certainly part of the story. But I think the rest of it is ideology.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
May 26, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
Ideology is sufficiently flexible to drive one toward almost any conclusion; witness a conservative party that old line conservatives can’t comprehend. Everyone get’s to pick their own motivating explanation. My present favorite is culture. But, really, I don’t know what explain these guys, which is, I guess, what makes them peculiarly scary.
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 26, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
It seems to me that his piece conflated two quite distinct points: 1) that the Iraq war is a dreadful idea, and that we’ve done all we can and should get out; 2) that wealthy people and institutions have great political power in our system, due their wealth, and that non-wealthy people don’t have remotely as much power.
They’re both true points, but the fact that 2 is true doesn’t mean it’s the largest causual factor behind 1. (I certainly don’t think it was; in this case, I think ideology dominated economic incentives.)
Comment by bob mcmanus —
May 26, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
I agree with Bacevich, on both the obvious level, and a level he may not have had in mind.
The economic foundations of the Iraq war and modern politics are very complicated and so controversial as to seem fringey.
The thread could be hijacked with a discussion of the Keynesian stimulus of the war spending (and other deficit spending enabled by the war), how that affects interest rates and asset prices, what would happen when it stops.
“Stuff” like that, where I would be shredded by the economists and other pros, if forced to argue in detail. Hell, few economists accept that interest rates or asset inflation have anything to do with fiscal or current account deficits. So hey, just forget I spoke.
Is it a vast banker conspiracy? No it is an mostly unspoken consensus.
Comment by sglover —
May 27, 2007 @ 12:13 am
I think Bacevich is maybe the most cogent foreign/military policy writer around today. (At least, he’s the best that I’ve read.) His son’s death was horrible news.
In his books, Bacevich has always been careful to point out that there’s no one demon, no grand cabal, that’s responsible for our drift to empire. So I don’t get the meaning that JH did from the essay. He mentioned the dominance of Big Money in our public life to make sense of the vignette at his son’s funeral. Of course the politicians nodded and feigned empathy — but listen to an informed citizen, hell, an expert citizen, on a public matter?!?!? Jay-zus H. Key-rist, they’re got important people to listen to, people who matter, doncha know…..
It’s a bit tangential, but I think the Dems are gonna suffer more for this week’s disgraceful sell-out than all the self-appointed “political strategists” can ever imagine.
Comment by Jackmormon —
May 27, 2007 @ 1:48 am
The air stank much more of burning fuel and other strange chemical compounds (among them asbestos, of course). A small point, but not so much so in propaganda.
Comment by Mona —
May 27, 2007 @ 1:54 am
It has only been less than a month for him. Smart, well-educated tho father may be, in that same time period, I was reduced to near imbecility. (Mine was not a war loss.)
Give him time. See what he says in 3 mos.
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 27, 2007 @ 1:59 am
The article is, indeed, also terribly sad.
Comment by Dave W. —
May 27, 2007 @ 3:11 am
Now I am no securities analyst, but I hear the SAIC IPO went tolerable well. You forgot the defense contractor that the vice president used to work for, too. Here is a list of the top 5 companies for 2007:
1. Wal-Mart Stores
2. Exxon Mobil
3. General Motors
4. Chevron
5. ConocoPhillips
Here is what the list looked like in 2002:
1 Wal-Mart Stores
2 Exxon Mobil
3 General Motors
4 Ford Motor
5 Enron
I guess the question with WAL*Mart is: are they selling cheap Chinese labor, or are they selling the services of getting the fruits of cheap Chinese labor into the closets and pantries of those who can pay?
C’mon, Mr. Henley. We all weren’t born yesterday.
Comment by abb1 —
May 27, 2007 @ 5:04 am
SomeCallMeTim is right: ideology is a red herring; activists will get excited about whatever they are told to get excited about. And tomorrow it can easily be the opposite of what they are excited about today, and they won’t miss a beat.
Comment by Brian —
May 27, 2007 @ 9:15 am
I don’t see, logically, how Big Oil would have favored a the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein proved himself quite willing in cut favorable deals with oil companies, in the hopes that such deals would help fortify his regime. See, e.g., the deals Saddam cut with TotalFinaElf, France’s biggest oil company, to develop oil fields in Iraq.
Comment by Dave W. —
May 27, 2007 @ 9:15 am
Is it a vast banker conspiracy? No it is an mostly unspoken consensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_task_force
OTOH, I am not trying to say that Mr. Henley is a plant or a ringer when doing his margin of p.r. for the business interests here in this highclearing entry. Still, it seems a tad naive.
Comment by Dave W. —
May 27, 2007 @ 9:26 am
See, e.g., the deals Saddam cut with TotalFinaElf, France’s biggest oil company, to develop oil fields in Iraq.
TotalFinaElf isn’t on my list of big US companies.
TotalFina Elf isn’t mentioned in that wikipedia entry I linked in my response a minute ago.
And there is your answer, Brian. The US soldiers and taxpayers are paying in blood and treasure (mostly treasure) so that their biggest companies can, errr, compete more effectively on the world stage. Gas costs less in the US than it does in France, too. Frankly, I wouldn’t be so torn up if the oil companies funded their own war by paying for the defense with taxes on large corporations, instead of paying for that war with debt to be paid back by a shrinking middle class.
I feel bad for 27 year old Coalition Soldiers who die over there because I don’t think it is what they signed up for. 19 year olds signing up now really ought to know better at this point.
Comment by Kevin Hayden —
May 27, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Ideology echoes in our auditory canals because it’s spoken aloud as propaganda and spoken again by the laity the propaganda converts.
In short, it seems to dominate because we hear of it more. Profit motives are pursued quietly.
They are sufficiently symbiotic that neither could advance this far without the other. Quantifying fear over greed or vice-versa seems to overlook the more critical fact that both are foul reasons to slaughter people. Amid modernity, they’re both so-o-o-o Middle Ages.
Comment by Nell —
May 27, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Mona’s point is sound; a lessening of previous nuance in Bacevich’s writing right now could be expected. But I mostly share sglover’s reading of the piece.
Still, on the underlying issue Jim raises: The major objective, on which (as far as I can tell) the major Democratic candidates and the current regime are united, seems to be to maintain long-term U.S. bases in Iraq.
So the question is what institutional and/or ideological forces keep the renunciation of such bases out of bounds for respectable discussion?
There’s been a shift over the last three years; candidate Kerry did renounce bases and support total withdrawal (though without specifying any timeline) in an October 2004 debate. I have yet to hear a candidate do so this year. However, I’m not paying close attention in the interests of mental health and would happily be pointed to statements showing I’m mistaken about this.
Comment by Mona —
May 27, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
BTW, let it not go unnoticed that two people sent this grieving father missives advising him that his public criticism of the war helped kill his son.
Vile does not begin to describe such behavior.
Comment by bob mcmanus —
May 27, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
“So the question is what institutional and/or ideological forces keep the renunciation of such bases out of bounds for respectable discussion?”
A well-founded recent speculation (which may be fact at the candidate level) that Saudi oil production is in relatively rapid decline?
Search Stuart Staniford at www.theoildrum.com
Comment by Thers —
May 27, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
The interests of the oil industry and the security-industrial complex (SAIC, CACI, Titan, Lockheed Martin etc.) make quite the interlocking set of interests with government officialdom. That’s certainly part of the story. But I think the rest of it is ideology
Who was it who said that vulgar materialism doesn’t explain everything, only 90% of it?
That last 10% is usually the crucial determinant for what happens & what doesn’t, but if the war were not sold as cheap and remunerative, we would not be in Iraq right now.
Comment by Jon H —
May 28, 2007 @ 12:56 am
Brian writes: “I don’t see, logically, how Big Oil would have favored a the war in Iraq.”
Scarcity also works in their favor. If they can’t handle the oil (ie, it goes through Elf) the second best option is for the oil to be off the market.
Comment by Dave W. —
May 28, 2007 @ 8:11 am
but if the war were not sold as cheap and remunerative
It was not so much renumerative as redistributive. The middle class is not always willing to tax itself for the benefit of big business. In the case of the Iraq war, they were. Money may not be made on net, but the point is that the payment for the imperialist effort is well spread over the nation as a whole, while the benefits go primarily to the investor class and their employees.
I mean, this is not an iron clad rule. Income taxes (but not cap gains) are still progressive. So the rich pay for a bit more of the war than the poor. Meanwhile, the cheap gas does trickle down. But those are just little adjustments at the margin. Most of whats happened with the Iraq War was a big transfer payment from poorer to richer in the US.
I don’t think everything needs to be looked at through the prism of class warfare. It is easy to get carried away. However, some things are explaianble by the rich behaving strategically and the mystery of the true causes of the Iraq War is one of those things.
Comment by Judith —
May 28, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
It would appear your readers believe history began when Pres. Bush took office. They do not recall Clinton bombing Iraq and his desire to “regime change” in the late 90’s. So convenient when you can write your own history (and talk amongst yourselves…no light here).