[A-List] Blowback?

[Bob Enoch <bobenoch@xxxxxxx>]

The Guardian article  headed "A war that can't be won", suggests that global
terrorism is a grave, un-anticipated result for the Empire.
Another warns of un-expected resistance in Afghanistan.
We are to understand that someone has blundered.

You can't, however, hold a war without an opponent.The "war on terror"
requires at least
some profile for the "enemy.
Since this regime has made it clear that the war will be a long one, it must
follow that this enemy is a precious, necessary commodity to the Empire.
What is described as "blowback",
should be interpreted as a strategy.

In Afghanistan, it is not credible to suggest that the US leadership
imagined it could pacify the country with two brigades, some loose
battalions and rented warlords, even with their awesome air capabilities.
American Generals and spooks read historytoo.They realize that
such a deployment level guarantees a resurgence of resistance. It is big and
intrusive enough to ignite the fierce independant spirit of the Afghans, but
too small  to even attempt to suppress it.
At the same time,there is much rhetoric, but little cash for their supposed
ally Karzai to rebuild infrastructure.
This suggests that the plan calls for simmering turmoil in the Caspian
region for a while yet.

This would not be blowback either.

In the coming Iraq campaign the "blowback" is said to be the "meltdown of
the region".
But this, along with its recasting in a new, American mold , is the stated
aim of the Hawks. Dark days for Palestine.Nervous ones for Iran, soon to be
number one on the axis of evil list.

We hear of bombs, and potential Islamist revolt in Saudi Arabia .
If America is "forced" to put down Al-quaida
coups in the Gulf, and occupies those oil-fields as well, will that be the
law of unintended consequences?, or the result of sound Imperial
preparation, and clarity of purpose.

Bob