George W. Bush is Out of Control

[Sophree]

Remember Will Pitt's article of the same name?

It could be by design:

From Noam Chomsky's new book, "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest For Global Dominance" (Highly recommended, the chapter on Iraq alone is worth it)-

Chapter 9, p. 218

"The threat of terrorism is, however, not the only abyss into which we peer. A much more grave threat to biology's only experiment with higher intelligence is posed by weapons of mass destruction. In an important 1995 document, the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) described nuclear weapons as the most valuable in the arsenal, because "unlike chemical or biological weapons, the extreme destruction from a nuclear explosion is immediate, with few if any pallatives to reduce its effect." Furthermore, "nuclear weapons always cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict," hence must be visible, at the ready. The study advises that planners should not portray themselves "as too fully rational and cool-headed...That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project." It is "beneficial" for our strategic posture if "some elements appear to be potentially 'out of control.'"

:nuke:

[Lone Pawn]

1. Eh...

A wee bit difference between lulling potential enemies into thinking you're less prepared than you are and an inability to secure a country (thus comitting the entirety of your effective army to a certain region for a decade).

[Sophree]

4. I don't think

the point is to lull potential enemies into thinking we're unprepared or incompetant (the Bush admin. is BOTH.) The point, I guess is to put your enemies on edge, wary of what you might do next. A VERY dangerous strategy, if you ask me. You're forcing people to make decisions when they are edgy and not thinking clearly at all.

[punpirate]

2. Sort of like Nixon's...

... "just let the news out that I've gone crazy..." routine to scare the Vietnamese into surrendering.

Oh, and that worked really, really well, too.

[Sophree]

3. Actually, Chomsky's next sentence

in that same paragraph is:

"Clinton's STRATCOM was proposing a version of Nixon's famous "madman theory," which he and Kissinger applied in an October 1969 alert that they believed to be risk-free but that might have gotten out of control because of critical factors they ignored- yet another example of the unpredictable consequences of the threat or use of force, which in the current era can be very serious indeed."

It frustrates me to no end when I hear Bush supporters say- At least he's doing something about this problem, blah, blah. Does it not occur to them to at least ponder if it is the right thing to do? Or will it make things much, much worse??