Me: >> I think he [Obama] and his advisers would like to have war without the >> standard trappings, since they evoke protest. That's the whole point of >> using drones, JSOC, stuxnet, and the like.<<
raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > Why? If the purpose of war is to feed the hunger of the military-industrial > complex, a low-intensity war is no good, right?< I don't think that the purpose of war is to feed the military-industrial complex. Instead, the MIC represents one interest group among others; it can't dictate policy, though of course it's an important force. (Is it really a unified force? I've heard that a lot of generals don't want a ground war.) Other important forces include the pro-Israel lobbies, which may be more important in the decisions about Syria. Part of the White House's job is to somehow reconcile maintenance of the imperialist system, the status of the US as hegemon within this system, and the interests of all of the various forces pushing for and against war. One thing that would really put a spoke in the imperialist wheel would be a return to a more labor-intensive form of war, since it would revive the anti-war movement (unless a clear and present danger can really be proved to people). In any event, drones, cruise missiles, JSOC, and stuxnet are expensive, which should keep the MIC happy. Even maintaining the current armed forces on alert is expensive: a voluntary army is more expensive per soldier than the old conscripted one. A lot of it has been privatized and thus more costly. I believe that my Dad's old part of the armed forces, i.e., the U.S. Navy Supply Corps, has currently been replaced by private contractors who are much more expensive (though they likely provide better food). -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
