I'll begin this diary entry with links to two articles that point to the strain U.S. armed forces are facing in Iraq:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1397131,00.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20041210/cm_usatoda
y/strainbeginstoshowasiraqstretchesmilitarythin
Now, as one of these articles points out, the situation is such that if the Bushies have any other imperialistic designs other than Iraq (Iran? Venezuela? Cuba?) involving the use of the U.S. military, there's no way they are going to be able to do anything about them given the current realities described in the two articles.
But when in the past has reality, or even the word "no," gotten in the way of the Bushinistas going after anything they want? I mean, if there is one slogan to me that sums up the Bush Administration it is the old Alcoholics Anonymous statement: "Self will run riot."
Obviously, the only answer to this dilemma for the Bushies is a draft.
But they are in a real dilemma. First, Bush promised during the election that there wouldn't be a draft. Second, I'm sure the Bush people are keenly aware that if they tried to bring back a draft they would encounter all sorts of political resistance among the general population and have a great chance of encountering forms of social unrest.
What to do. then, if you are a Bushie imperialist?
Well, I've said this before here on Kos, but I'll say it again:
If I were the Bushies, I'd PURPOSELY let another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil occur. Perhaps this time, I'd even hope (or plan for) a terrorost attack invovling some form of nuclear weapons or radioactivity--something that would make 9/11 look like nothing more than a bloody street fight in comparison.
If such an attack were to occur, the Bush people could EASILY argue that, given the realities of our present troop deployments in Iraq, and the PRESSING need to fight the war on terror, a draft was absolutely necessary and that they therefore had to go back on their election year promise not to institute one.
Here's the beauty of this plan of action: Who would argue with them? The American people would be so traumatized that they'd demand some form of action to "protect us against the terrorists," and they'd go along with the Bush people as they reinstituted a draft. And anyone who had any qualms about such a course of action, would keep their mouths shut for fear of being labelled 'unpatriotic,' or, even worse, for fear of being thrown in jail (because, in such a scenario, Americans could kiss what's currently left of their civil liberties and their right to dissent "goodbye.")
Now, a lot of you can't fathom that such a scenario as I've envisioned is possible. To you, it is the product of a crazy, "paranoid," "conspiratorial" mindset.
In fact, for a lot of similar reasons, a lot of you can't fathom the possibility that the Bush people PURPOSELY allowed 9/11 to happen. (And FYI, I'm not saying that that is in fact what they DID do. But at this point, I have watched these people in action for the past four years, and I am informed of enough facts surrounding 9/11 that I wouldn't rule out the possibility or this, either. I really do believe that the Bush people are capable of ANYTHING, no matter how immoral, evil, or corrupt it may be.)
Now, I'm going to turn all this around to you who eschew "conspiracy theories."
- As a psychologist I know once said, true paranoia exists when one has a fear of danger or persecution that NO ONE ELSE ACKNOWLEDGES or SEES. It gets harder and harder to say one is truly paranoid when OTHER PEOPLE also share the same fear.
- For those of you who dismiss the way of thinking I've laid out as "conspiratorial" (which, in the American popular mindset, is practically the same thing as saying someone is a crazy paranoid), I invite you to consider the following things:
a. In the United States, every one of the 50 state legal jursidictions as well as the federal legal system all have laws on the books that punish some form of the crime of "conspiracy." According to one legal dictionary, "conspiracy" is defined as: "a combination of two or more persons to commit a criminal or unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means; or a combination of two or more persons by concerted action to accomplish some unlawful purpose, or some purpose not in itself unlawful by unlawful means."
You who automatically pooh-pooh conspiracy theories, let me ask you this: If "conspiracies" never happen, then why do we have laws on the books punishing them?
b. A lot of you, while acknowledging the fact that conpriacies in fact do happen, think that they only happen among the "criminal element." You know, the "bad guys" like mobsters or bank robbers. You can't fathom the possibility that people in positions of official power and authority could ever be the "bad guys" or comprise the "criminal element." You simply won't let yourselves think this way. And my question to you, is why not? Why won't you let yourselves AT LEAST entertain such a possibility? Is it because the possiblity or the thought that government officials and politicans--people we've been taught since we were children are people to be revered as individuals that always have our best interests in mind--are really this evil or corrupt is too terrible and horrifying to face?
c. The writer Gore Vidal has said again and again that in the United States, Americans have been brainwashed to believe that conspiracies among people in high places, or among people in offical offices of poliitcal power, don't ever occur. Vidal points out that one of the ways this belief is reinforced is through a corporate media (which is itself an institution that exists to protect and further the interests of those who have the real political and economic power in our society) that is poised to dismiss anyone as a whacko conspiracy theorist if they suggest, say, that JFK was killed by more than one gunman, or that our politicians might act IN CONCERT in ways that sell out the best interests of the American public.
But let me turn it around. What other things does the corporate media lie to us about? How often do they tell us the truth about our elected leaders? Specifically, when was the last time you saw a corporate media expose about how our politicians are on the payrolls of corporations and special interest groups, and how they, as a consequence, consistently sell out the best interests of the American people? Or, how often have they even told us the truth about the crimes and fuck ups of the Bush Administration?
d. We have been conditioned in our society to believe in the "myth of American exceptionalism." This myth essentially holds that no matter what history has shown us the human condition is or is the human heart is capable of, or no matter what the rest of the human race has gone through, somehow America is an exception to these realities by virtue of its "superior moral character," "its high ideals," "the unique virtue of the American people," "the superior and enlightened nature of America's political institutions," or some combination of these things. In essence, it holds that America stands out as the one exception throughout human history to the evil and corruption that has plagued most of the human race and its political struggles throughout history. (Incidentally, tied in with this myth is also the idea of "progress," the idea that our civilization is progressing toward some ideal or enlightened state and that it has overcome the evils and miseries of the past such that they no longer happen. I would also suggest that in many ways, the idea of civilization's "progress" is also a myth, at least when it comes to the realities of the human heart.)
e. Vidal has also pointed out that in Europe, in contrast to in America, people in general have no problems with "conspiracy theories." They think conspiracies among people in high places happen all the time and have no problems saying so. I suggest that if this is true, it is because the cultures of Europe stretch back thousands of years. Thus, these people have long histories . . . and are AWARE of these histories. In other words, Europeans have been educated and conditioned by their long pasts to expect what we Americans have come to think of as the "unexpected" . . . or even the unthinkable.
f. Like so many Americans, so many of you are truly IGNORANT of history. I don't mean this in the sense that you don't know such "facts" as who the "father or our country" was, or who faught the Civil War. Rather, I mean that you have not really read about the American past from points of view different from those given to us in our primary school history texts. Also, a lot of you have no familiarity with world history, except insofar as it involves the United States. Thus, you are not familiar with the cultures of ancient Isreal, or of ancient Greece, or of ancient Rome and how people in positions of power in those societies conspired all of the time to achieve their ends. You have no knowledge of how the Popes of Europe, for example, weilded their power in corrupt and self-serving ways. Or how the rulers of the Italian city-states of the Middle Ages and the early Rennaisance conspired against one another and their enemies to seize and maintain power. You have no appreciation for the great empires of the world that have come and gone before us and how their fates were often tied in with the conspiratorial designs of their rulers. I say this, because if many of you DID know about these things, you'd see that the "myth of American exceptionalism" is just that--a myth--and that human history shows that people with great wealth and power act in concert to accomplish self-serving and often unlawful ends much of the time.
f. Finally, for those of you who still have trouble with the idea of "conspiracy theories," allow me to point out that what happened to Enron, along with the assistance of the folks at Arther Anderson, involved conspiracies . . . as did what happened at WorldCom. Watergate involved conspiracies. Iran-Contra involved conspiracies. Old man Joseph Kennedy grew wealthy and powerful by way of conspiracies. Rather than thinking that conspiracies among people in high places never happen, I think it is a lot better to realize that they HAPPEN ALL OF THE TIME. It is just that people in high places have the means to HIDE these conspiracies or to distract the American public (often by way of a corrupt corporate media) from the realization that they are going on.
So, let me take this back to where I began with the whole issue of the draft.
I am convinced that the only thing that keeps the current administration in line is the fear of getting caught. Tied in with the fear of getting caught is their awareness of the expectation on the part of large parts of the American public that they might pull this or that course of action. Thus, for example, I'm sure that the only reason they didn't PLANT weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is because so many people were expecting them to do so and, as a consequence, they knew they'd have a hard time pulling it off in a credible manner.
In the same way, it is only by making enough people aware of the depths to which the people in power will stoop to achieve their ends, that the people in power will actually be discouraged from stooping to these depths . . . for fear that others will expect such behavior from them and indeed find them out if they attempt it.