It may seem to be the first picture, but in reality it's the second

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis or in other words Problem, Reaction, Solution

Problem: "The war is criminal" We don't have enough troops to do the job

Reaction: Generals revolting

Solution: 99.7 Billion dollars and more troops

But that's been the plan all along

This morning I read the first paragraph of this article by Peter Baker in today’s Washington Post:

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the “stressed” U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

After which enough alarm bells went off in my head to wake the dead.

The January 2007 issue of Harper’s (the cover art is a photograph of a rubber duckie) has an article by Chalmers Johnson titled “Republic or Empire: A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States.” It’s not online and won’t be for awhile (once again, Harper’s policy about not putting articles online until they’re a couple of months old makes me crazy), but reading the article in light of Baker’s news story is guaranteed to scare the living bleep out of you.

In the article, Chalmers discusses “military Keynesianism,” in which “the flow of the nation’s wealth — from taxpayers and (increasingly) foreign lenders through the government to military contractors and (decreasingly) back to the taxpayers.” As a result, “the domestic economy requires sustained military ambition in order to avoid recession or collapse.” Then, he ties military Keynesianism to the “unitary executive” theory and Bush’s increasingly unchecked power. Meanwhile, citizens and media dutifully “abet their government in maintaining a facade of constitutional democracy until the nation drifts into bankruptcy.”

...Military Keynesianism … creates a feedback loop: American presidents know that military Keynesianism tends to concentrate power in the executive branch, and so presidents who seek greater power have a natural inducement to encourage further growth of the military-industrial complex. As the phenomena feed on each other, the usual outcome is a real war, based not on the needs of national defense but rather on the domestic political logic of military Keynesianism

… George W. Bush has taken this natural political phenomenon to an extreme never before experienced by the American electorate. Every president has sought greater authority, but Bush … appears to believe that increasing presidential authority is both a birthright and a central component of his historical legacy.

… John Yoo, Bush’s deputy assistant attorney general from 2001 to 2003, writes in his book War By Other Means, “We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts laws, the President enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.”

Chalmers Johnson's article [pdf file]

They know exactly what they're doing. You send troops without body armor and they get killed or seriously hurt, then you have to put out a contract for armor so more troops aren't killed or injured. Not enough armor for the Hummmv's? Well, that's too bad "son", we'll take care of that by putting out a contract for that armor. You don't have enough troops to keep the peace? We send more troops to keep the peace, we send more troops, there's more resistance, so we have to send even more troops, then because we send more troops, there is more resistance, then because there's more ...

You blow up hospitals and schools - which takes care of one aspect of the "Military Industrial Complex", then you have to rebuild - which takes care of another aspect of the Military Industrial Complex. They say nobody reports on the "good news", but that "good news" doesn't exist. And because the schools keep getting blown up - somebody has to rebuild them.

They know what they're doing: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

It's a continuous non ending profit making machine and feedback loop.

More here and here and here