From: "Eric" <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: The nexus and the olive tree
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 02:22:56 -0500


Rod,

I read your notes with great interest and sympathy. The state of
paranoia in these United States is all too real these days. I am here to
tell you that you are not alone in your resistance to the "Invasion of
the Body Snatchers." Not everyone in America has become a pod.

Recently, there was a commemorative gathering at the place where I work
to remember 9/11. Red, white and blue label ribbons were given out to
the participants. I felt it would inappropriate to wear mine, given the
current situation. It was an eerie feeling, however, to realize I was
practically the only one in the room who wasn't wearing a ribbon.

I have some friends who are Hindus from India. Their car sports a large
American flag.  When I first saw it, part of me wanted to take them to
task for being so jingoistic at a time like this. Then the realization
struck me. If I was a person with dark skin from that part of the world,
wouldn't I do something similar, if only for reasons of protective
camouflage? Perhaps the underlying motivation was not really patriotism,
but fear.

Given the current economic climate, where the ranks of the unemployed
and the uninsured are rising, people naturally have an instinct to
maintain their security. The climate is far more repressive than it was
a year ago and people are afraid to step out of line, to do anything
that would allow them to be snuffed out by the powers that be.

We are rapidly approaching the times of Orwell when EUSASIA tells us
that slavery is freedom and war is peace. A non-elected coalition of
elite interests rules the state and the media transmits a barrage of
sophistry, half-truths and lies under the guise of entertainment. A
gullible public allows itself to be manipulated. It is ultimately a form
of seduction, played to the music of the Mephisto waltz.

The questions of "Why Iraq?" and "Why Now?" appear to offer three basic
answers, as far as I can determine.

1. Geo-Political - The situation in Saudi Arabia has become more
precarious, now that citizens are beginning to clamor for more
democratic reforms. Ten years ago, Hussein could be permitted to remain
in power because he was seen as a stabilizing force in the region, and
much better for U.S. interests than the alternatives.  Now, this is no
longer the case.  The control of Iraq would give the U.S. a more
strategic foothold in the region, and, along with the presence of Israel
and Afghanistan, allow the U.S. to create a kind of triangulation in the
region and consolidate its power in the face of current opposition.

2. Oil - After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the largest oil reserves in the
Middle East, and has recently entered into a number of deals with Russia
and China.  There is a fear that, given the current unstable climate,
the control of the oil fields could incur a slippage which would result
in a loss of U.S. hegemony. With a regime change in Iraq, however, the
current agreements could then be reneged upon, or in any case
renegotiated, and the U.S. could securely maintain its position as
oil-broker-to-the-world successfully into the near future.

3. The Palestinian Problem - Sharon has, at various times, indicated he
would like to eliminate the Palestinians by means of Diaspora into some
other region such as Jordan. Then Israel could finally establish itself
as an all-Jewish state.  The current attempted erosion of the leadership
of Arafat appears to be merely the first step towards this final
solution. Without any organized resistance, the Palestinians would be
more pliable, especially if a regime change in Iraq created a greater
U.S. presence to act as a buffer.

Admittedly these objectives, as I have outlined them, are somewhat
speculative.  The real intentions of the U.S. in the current situation
remain muffled. It strikes me, however, that the current U.S. regime is
knowingly playing a dangerous and desperate game.  The obvious thrust of
world affairs is towards greater globalization, what Negri and Hardt
have called Empire. The specter of this emergent order is one that is
governed by 'soft' power and international law.  The reality is,
however, that once this development occurs, the U.S. can no longer
maintain its current role as the sole ruling power.

The counter-strategy appears to be this. If the U.S. can assert its
military might and maintain its control of the oil fields, then the next
decade of the new millennium would belong to the U.S., and Empire would
then wear an American mask. These seem to be the ultimate stakes of the
game that is currently being played. 

Whether the rest of the world will simply passively submit to this
strategy is the free variable of the situation; and the results, thus
far, remain indeterminate. The risk, as always, when a nation acts so
aggressively to secure its own naked interest is that a blowback will
occur and greater violence may result. 

The hope, as always, remains that Bush and his cowboy imperialism will
fail and, with his demise, the promise of Globalism will ultimately be
fulfilled. One day, perhaps, a more just, and, a more peaceful
international order will be established.  

We are all Globalists now!

eric