Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Potent Policymaking

Here's another post from that cuddly meth-head, Belacqua Jones.




Dear George,

At the end of the day, policy is a guy thing, and the nastier the policy, the more fun guys have formulating it. It’s downright stimulating to hash out strategies for containment, neutralization, or collateralizing damage. He needs a nasty policy to implement because the manly virtues have all become unfashionable. For this, I blame the nation's female school teachers. They are the ones who make the boys stay in their seats or send them to the principal’s office every time display the testosteronic energy that is their birthright.

This self-stimulation through policy had its finest moment at the Wansee Conference when German businessmen, civil servants and technicians signed on to the holocaust. Those were heady days, indeed. What a joy it must have been to plan and organize state-sanctioned violence with the added benefit of never having to see a dead body.

Let me give you an example of how strong this lust for policy is. In 1992, the DOD prepared a document titled Defense Planning Guidance (DPG). This document stated that the goal of United States foreign policy was to prevent the emergence of any power that could threaten U.S. military supremacy. The press got wind of the document, there was a public outcry, and the DPG was dismissed as being the product of a lunatic fringe.

History proves that yesterday’s lunatic is today’s policymaker.

With your selection in 2000, Rummy rode to the rescue, white of hair and white of horse, to bring the DPG back to life. Now, the first rule of rehabilitating bullshit is to repackage it. Same shit; different box. On February 5, 2006, Rummy issued the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and, damned if the goal stated in the DPG didn’t rise from the dead. Only, Rummy went the DPR one better. He identified a specific threat to our military superiority. It was none other than the pawnshop where we’ve hocked our children’s future—China.

Do your realize what this means? It means the Cold War is alive and well, but instead of containing the Soviet Union, we’re going to contain China, which will require all sorts of new weapons systems. As one commentator put it, “Preparing for war with China…is to be the future cash cow for the giant U.S. weapons making corporations in the military-industrial complex.”[1]

The simple fact is that we have become psychologically dependent on the presence of an evil force bent on destroying us. Fifty years of a Cold War conditioned us to the point that we feel naked and exposed in the absence of a threat. A man can’t be a man unless somebody is out to get him. It is this threat that keeps him in fighting trim. Fantasies of destruction have always been more invigorating than fantasies of growth and maturation. What man ever dreams of being wise or just? Rather, it is our fantasy to combine the best qualities of the conquistador and the stud muffin.

W.H. Auden got it right when he said, “We would rather be ruined than changed.” The one manly virtue that can never be touched is the romantic glory of self-destruction. A public flameout glorified artists like Van Gogh and Pollack. Would not the public glorify the state that self-destructed? After all, the British made an industry out of glorifying their military disasters.

Your admirer,
Belacqua Jones


[1] See Michael T. Klare’s article at http://tomdispatch.com/indexprint.mhtml?pid=78021

1 Comments:

Blogger Lyssa Strada said...

We appreciate your revealing these secrets to us, T.

LS

8:06 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home